Siman 106 — Lamdan Level: a piece that absorbed issur, and what the sixty are measured against
יורה דעה · סימן ק״ו
דין היאך מבטלין בששים
לפי חשבון · אפשר לסוחטו אסור · נבלל ונימוח מול יבש · חתיכה נעשית נבילה
📜 רמת הלמדן · Talmid Hakham
✦ ❖ ✦
Two seifim, and a single question that holds them both: sixty against the absorbed issur, or sixty against the whole piece?
Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ו · ב׳ סעיפים · with ש״ך · ט״ז · פתחי תשובה
Root of the sugya in Shas:
חולין ק׳ ע״א (the sugya of the כחל: “it fell into another pot”, and the כחל itself forbidden) · חולין ק״ח ע״א (חתיכה נעשית נבילה) · חולין צ״ז ע״ב (טעם כעיקר and nullification in sixty)
Written by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
📑 Table of contents
Introduction to the sugya — a piece that absorbed issur without sixty against it, and then fell into a pot (seif 1)
The principle of “לפי חשבון” — we nullify against the absorbed issur alone, and the piece itself joins the count (seif 1)
אפשר לסוחטו אסור — why the piece itself remains forbidden, and the sugya of the כחל (ט״ז ס״ק א)
נבלל ונימוח against the dry — the Mehaber’s distinction between liquid and solid, and what the Rama rules (ש״ך ס״ק ג–ד)
The machlokes חתיכה נעשית נבילה — the Mehaber (in meat and milk alone, לפי חשבון elsewhere) against the Rama and our practice (sixty against the whole piece, see siman 92)
Removing the piece from the pot — the practical conduct, the fear that it be left last, and the condition of salting (seif 2; ט״ז ס״ק ב, ש״ך ס״ק ו)
Pischei Teshuva — the Noda bi-Yehuda (absorbed from its own kind, and through salting) and the Tiferes Tzvi (כבוש)
דין היאך מבטלין בששים. ובו ב׳ סעיפים: חתיכה שבלעה איסור ואין בה ס׳ לבטלו שנפלה לקדרה אינה אוסרת אלא לפי חשבון איסור שבה שאם יש במה שבקדרה מצורף עם החתיכה עצמה ששים כנגד איסור הבלוע בה מותר מה שבקדרה אבל החתיכה עצמה אסורה לפי שאיסור שבה אינו נפלט ממנה לגמרי (רשב״א ותוס׳ פרק ג״ה דף ק׳ ורא״ש ומרדכי שם וסמ״ג דף נ״א ע״ג וסה״ת סי׳ נ״ב וכ״ה בלשון ר׳ אפרים גופיה שבחדושי רשב״א דף קי״ח ושבסוף ספר ראב״ן וכ״כ מהרש״ל פרק ג״ה סי׳ נ״ז וכל האחרונים) (וכן עיקר ודלא כמו שכתב לעיל סימן צ״ב דאף אותה חתיכה מותרת) מה שאין כן בדבר הנבלל ונימוח שאם נפל דם וכיוצא בו לתוך רוטב של היתר ואסרו מחמת מיעוטו ואח״כ נתרבה הרוטב של היתר עד שיש בין כולו ס׳ לבטל הדם כולו מותר שהכל נבלל ונתערב: הגה ולפי מה שנוהגין לומר בכל האסורים חתיכה נעשית נבלה אין חילוק בין דבר לח לדבר יבש אלא לענין זה דאם הנאסר כבר הוא דבר יבש ויש ס׳ כנגדו החתיכה הנאסרת תחילה נשארת באיסורה וצריך להסירה משם אם מכירה ואם אינו מכירה בטילה אם אינה חתיכה הראויה להתכבד ואם הוא דבר לח הכל מותר מאחר דאיכא ס׳ נגד מה שנאסרה תחילה ועיין לעיל סימן צ״ב וצ״ט:
summary: a piece that absorbed issur without having sixty in it to nullify it, and then fell into a pot, forbids only in proportion to the issur it carries; the piece itself joins the count, yet it remains forbidden, because what it absorbed does not come out of it entirely. In something that blends and dissolves it is otherwise: if the permitted matter increases until there is sixty against the whole of the issur, everything is permitted. The Rama, who follows the practice of saying in all issurim that a piece becomes neveilah, removes that distinction between liquid and dry, and keeps it on one point alone: what was already rendered forbidden while dry stays in its prohibition and must be removed if one recognises it.
1. Introduction to the sugya — a piece that absorbed issur without sixty
The principle — a piece that absorbed, and in which nothing was nullified
The siman opens with a permitted piece that has absorbed issur — a drop of milk, a little blood — and which does not itself contain sixty against what it drank in. That piece is therefore, at this stage, forbidden. And now it falls into another pot, this one of permitted food.
Here is the innovation of the siman: this piece does not forbid the pot the way a full issur would, which would require sixty against its whole body. There is no intrinsic issur in it, only an absorbed issur; we therefore measure sixty against that absorbed issur alone, and the piece, not itself being issur, joins the count of the permitted matter in the pot.
« חתיכה שבלעה איסור ואין בה ס׳ לבטלו שנפלה לקדרה אינה אוסרת אלא לפי חשבון איסור שבה » (שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:א)
The measure of “לפי חשבון”. If the piece absorbed a kezayis of issur, one does not need sixty against the whole piece but sixty against that kezayis alone — and in that reckoning the piece itself is joined to the rest of what is in the pot. So the Mehaber writes explicitly:
« שאם יש במה שבקדרה מצורף עם החתיכה עצמה ששים כנגד איסור הבלוע בה מותר מה שבקדרה » (שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:א)
This is the Mehaber’s reading following the Rambam: in issurim other than meat and milk the piece does not itself become the body of the issur, and so it is against the absorbed issur alone that one measures. What is thereby permitted is what is in the pot — the broth, the other pieces, the vegetables — and not the piece, which the seif turns to immediately afterwards.
The Shach’s reading (ס״ק א) — “לפי חשבון” is the Mehaber’s language, not ours. The Shach at once ties the phrase to the Mehaber’s position, who does not say that a piece becomes neveilah in other issurim:
« היינו לדעת המחבר דס״ל דלא אמרינן חנ״נ בשאר איסורים משא״כ לדידן » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א)
and for our own practice he refers to another siman — וע״ל סי׳ צ״ט ס״ג וס״ה(ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א). It follows that everything this seif says “in proportion” is said according to the Mehaber, and that with the Rama the measure changes.
2. אפשר לסוחטו אסור — the piece itself stays in its prohibition
This is the tightest point of the siman, and the Taz devotes a long comment to it (ס״ק א).
The chakira — if what is in the pot is permitted, why is the piece forbidden? At first glance, if the piece was joined to the count of sixty and the absorbed issur was nullified against the whole, why should the piece not return to its permitted state as well? It is, after all, part of the very sixty that nullified the issur.
The Mehaber’s answer — אפשר לסוחטו אסור. The Mehaber gives the reason: what the piece absorbed does not come out of it entirely. However much the permitted matter has increased, so that sixty can be counted against the absorbed issur, the absorbed issur does not leave the piece to the end; some of it remains within its body.
« אבל החתיכה עצמה אסורה לפי שאיסור שבה אינו נפלט ממנה לגמרי » (שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:א)
Such is the rule called אפשר לסוחטו אסור(ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב): a thing that would be forbidden if one squeezed it — that is, if one pressed the absorbed issur out of it — remains forbidden in its own body even after what came out has been nullified. Hence the division: what is in the pot is permitted, the piece itself is forbidden.
The Taz’s chiddush (ס״ק א) — the rule would belong to meat and milk. The Taz begins from the difficulty the Tur raises here, and shows that it is already the gemara’s own difficulty in the sugya of the כחל (חולין ק׳ ע״א). There the gemara objects: since the כחל is counted within the sixty, we evidently do not treat it as a piece of issur — and then, if it falls into another pot, it should forbid nothing, for whatever the milk had to give off it gave off in the first pot. The gemara answers that, since R. Yitzchak said the כחל itself is forbidden, the Sages made it like a piece of neveilah; and Tosafos explain that “the כחל itself is forbidden” by אפשר לסוחטו אסור(ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א) — at the start of the cooking, before the milk had fully come out, it became forbidden through the taste of the meat, and so it does not become permitted again once everything has come out.
From this the Taz draws a consequence that turns the argument around. The Tur wrote in siman 92 that we say אפשר לסוחטו אסור(ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א) only in meat and milk:
« כבר כתב רבינו בסי׳ צ״ב דלא אמרינן אפשר לסוחטו אסור אלא בבשר בחלב » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א)
Now the כחל is precisely a case of meat and milk — rabbinically so, since it is the milk of a slaughtered animal — and כל דתיקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תיקון(ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א), the Sages having instituted in the likeness of what is of the Torah. The gemara’s answer would therefore hold for the כחל and for it alone. Here, in our siman, which deals with other issurim, where one says אפשר לסוחטו מותר(ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א), the objection stands untouched:
« נמצא דכאן בסי׳ זה דמיירי בשאר איסורין ואפשר לסוחטו מותר נשאר הדבר כקושיית המקשן דאפי׳ חתיכה מותרת » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א)
On this reading the piece itself should have been permitted — and the question remains standing as it is.
The Rashba’s reading, brought by the Taz — and it is this one that resolves. The Taz then brings another explanation of the same gemara, that of the Rashba (תורת הבית): if the כחל that fell into a second pot forbids, it is not on account of meat and milk, but because we are concerned that it did not give off all its milk in the first pot.
« שאנו חוששין שלא פלט כל חלבו בקדירה ראשונה » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א)
On this reading there is no longer any reason to distinguish meat and milk from the other issurim, and the piece stays forbidden throughout, out of the concern that not all of the absorbed issur has come out:
« וא״כ אין חילוק בין בשר בחלב לשאר איסורים ע״כ אוסר החתיכה עצמה נמצא הכל ניחא בס״ד » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א)
Both readings are needed to hear the Mehaber’s language: that what the piece absorbed “does not come out of it entirely” can be said either as a stringency instituted in the likeness of the Torah, or as a factual doubt about what has really come out.
3. נבלל ונימוח against the dry — the distinction of liquid and solid
מה שאין כן בדבר הנבלל ונימוח שאם נפל דם וכיוצא בו לתוך רוטב של היתר ואסרו מחמת מיעוטו ואח״כ נתרבה הרוטב של היתר עד שיש בין כולו ס׳ לבטל הדם כולו מותר שהכל נבלל ונתערב
summary: in something that blends and dissolves — blood fallen into permitted broth, which it forbade because there was too little to nullify it — if the permitted broth then increases until there is, in the whole, sixty against all the blood, everything is permitted, since all of it is blended and mixed together.
The principle — why liquid differs from dry. In something that is הנבלל ונימוח(שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:א) there is no “piece” standing on its own of which one could say that it is among those one would squeeze: the issur — the blood — mingles and spreads through the whole broth at once. Therefore, when the permitted matter increases until there is sixty against all the blood, nothing is left that could remain forbidden — כולו מותר שהכל נבלל ונתערב(שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:א). In the dry, by contrast, the absorbed issur has settled in the body of the piece, and it is of that piece that one says one could squeeze it: it therefore stays in its prohibition even though what came out of it has been nullified.
What the Rama rules (glose) — for us there is no distinction between liquid and dry. Since we follow the practice of saying that a piece becomes neveilah in all issurim, the liquid that was rendered forbidden also becomes like the body of the issur:
« ולפי מה שנוהגין לומר בכל האסורים חתיכה נעשית נבלה אין חילוק בין דבר לח לדבר יבש » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו:א)
The Rama nevertheless keeps the distinction on one point: if what was rendered forbidden was dry and there is sixty against it, the first piece stays in its prohibition and must be removed if one recognises it.
« החתיכה הנאסרת תחילה נשארת באיסורה » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו:א)
« וצריך להסירה משם אם מכירה ואם אינו מכירה בטילה » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו:א)
and that nullification by majority holds only on condition that it not be a חתיכה הראויה להתכבד(רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו:א) — a piece fit to be served to guests (see the beginning of siman 101). If, on the other hand, the thing is liquid, the Rama concludes that everything is permitted once there is sixty against what had been rendered forbidden at first.
The Shach’s precision (ס״ק ג–ד) — how far “no distinction” reaches. The Shach (ס״ק ג) notes that even where liquid issur was mixed into liquid heter one says that a piece becomes neveilah, but where there is no great loss:
« וגם בנתערב איסור לח בהיתר לח אמרינן חנ״נ בשאר איסורים במקום שאין הפסד גדול » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ג)
and on this he refers to the Rama’s gloss in siman 92. Then (ס״ק ד) he reconstructs the Rama’s sentence: once it is granted that all issurim stand, on this point, under the regime of meat and milk, there is no longer any difference between them as to liquid and dry, except for this one case —
« בין בבשר בחלב בין בשאר איסורים חתיכה הנאסרת תחלה נשארת באיסורה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ד)
and, concerning liquid, he adds the limit that gives the Rama back his measure:
« אבל במקום הפסד גדול לא אמרינן בכה״ג חנ״נ בשאר איסורים רק בבשר בחלב » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ד)
The Shach also notes, in passing, a difficulty of reading: at first sight the clause about a piece fit to be served would seem to refer to the other issurim under discussion, which would be hard, since their prohibition does not come from themselves; he therefore attaches that clause to the case of meat and milk, as is explained at the beginning of siman 101.
4. The machlokes חתיכה נעשית נבילה — the Mehaber against the Rama
This is the machlokes that governs the whole siman, and it reaches well beyond it, across the laws of mixtures.
The root of the chakira — two ways of looking at a piece that absorbed.
A piece that absorbed issur: is it a body of heter carrying an absorbed issur within it, or has the whole piece become issur — neveilah?
• On the first way, one measures sixty against the absorbed issur alone — לפי חשבון(ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א) — and the piece joins the count.
• On the second, one measures sixty against כל החתיכה(ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ה), since it has become neveilah in its entirety.
The root of the machlokes:
Position
A piece that absorbed issur
Source
The Mehaber (following the Rambam and the Maggid Mishneh)
A piece becomes neveilah only in meat and milk; in other issurim one measures in proportion — sixty against the absorbed issur alone — and the piece joins the count
שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו ס״א ; ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א
The Rama and our practice (Tosafos, Semag, Semak, Mordechai)
A piece becomes neveilah in all issurim: it is issur in its entirety, and sixty are needed against the whole piece (see siman 92)
רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו ס״א ; ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ג
The nafka mina, in figures. Take a piece that absorbed one kezayis of issur and that itself weighs ten kezayis; it falls into a pot holding sixty kezayis of permitted food. According to the Mehaber: sixty are needed against the single absorbed kezayis, and the piece joins the count — seventy against one, which is ample; what is in the pot is therefore permitted (the piece itself stays forbidden, as the continuation of the seif says). According to the Rama: the whole piece, ten kezayis, has become neveilah, and sixty are needed against those ten — six hundred; the sixty in the pot do not suffice, and everything is forbidden. There one measures what the practice of saying that a piece becomes neveilah adds in stringency, and it is the practical gap between the Sephardic and the Ashkenazic ruling (see siman 92 for the full detail).
The Shach (ס״ק ב) — the piece is forbidden even for Rabbeinu Ephraim. The Shach brings in the name of the Rashba (תורת הבית) that even according to Rabbeinu Ephraim and those who follow him, who do not say that a piece becomes neveilah in other issurim, the piece here remains forbidden:
« דאפי׳ לרבינו אפרים וסייעתו דלא אמרינן חנ״נ בשאר איסורים אפשר לסוחטו אסור והחתיכה עצמה לעולם אסורה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב)
He notes that there are poskim who hold that one could also squeeze it and permit it, but that the halacha does not follow that way; and he concludes that for us, who hold that a piece becomes neveilah in all issurim, the matter is self-evident:
« מיהו לדידן דקי״ל חנ״נ בכל האיסורים פשיטא דלכ״ע החתיכה לעולם אסורה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב)
Both ways therefore agree on the fate of the piece, and part only over the measure by which the rest of the pot is nullified.
חתיכה שיש בה חלב שנתבשלה בקדירה שיש בה ס׳ לבטל החלב צריך ליזהר שלא יסיר שום דבר מהקדירה בעוד חתיכת האיסור בתוכה דחיישינן שמא תשאר באחרונה בשעה שאין בקדרה ס׳ לבטל החלב וגם לא יוציאנה תחלה שחלב שבה יאסור אותה ומה תקנתה יניחנה עד שתצטנן הקדירה: הגה ולפי מה דקיימא לן חתיכה נעשית נבילה מסיר החתיכה האסורה משם והשאר מותר (ד״ע):
summary: a piece bearing forbidden fat cooked in a pot in which there is sixty to nullify it; one must take care not to remove anything from the pot while the piece of issur is in it, lest it be left last at a moment when there is no longer sixty against the fat; nor is one to remove it first, for the fat it bears would forbid it; the remedy is to leave it until the pot cools. The Rama, for whom a piece becomes neveilah, writes that one removes the forbidden piece and the rest is permitted.
The principle — the conduct at the moment of removal. A piece bearing forbidden fat cooks in a pot in which there is sixty against that fat: the issur is nullified as long as the pot is full. But the concern is twofold:
• Remove nothing first — otherwise one diminishes the sixty, and when the piece of issur is left last there will no longer be sixty against it: דחיישינן שמא תשאר באחרונה בשעה שאין בקדרה ס׳ לבטל החלב(שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:ב).
• Do not take the piece of issur out first — for once out and still hot, the fat it bears would forbid it, there being no sixty within it.
The remedy: יניחנה עד שתצטנן הקדירה(שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:ב) — one leaves it until the pot cools, since then there is neither absorbing nor giving off.
The Taz’s chiddush (ס״ק ב) — if one leaves it, it is permitted. The Taz explains that this seif differs from the first. In seif 1 the piece was already forbidden by an earlier absorption with no sixty against it, and so it remains in its prohibition. Here, on the contrary, the fat is still lying upon it and has not yet been absorbed; the pot has sixty; and if he leaves it in the pot, the giving off of the taste is distributed evenly through the whole pot, so that nothing is forbidden, not even the piece:
« משמע דאם יניחנה תהא מותרת » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב)
« ובאותה שעה הולכת פליטת הבליעה בכל הקדירה בשוה » (ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב)
The whole concern of the seif therefore hangs on taking it out first, or taking something else out before it and diminishing the sixty. The Taz adds that this reasoning presupposes the position by which one does not say, in the other issurim, that a piece becomes neveilah.
The Shach (ס״ק ה–ז) — our measure, the condition of salting, and the practical act. At ס״ק ה the Shach gives the measure according to our practice: since we hold that a piece becomes neveilah in all issurim, and likewise for issur that adheres,
« ה״ה הכא צריך ששים נגד כל החתיכה שהחלב דבוק בה ואפי׳ הכי החתיכה עצמה אסורה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ה)
— sixty against the whole piece to which the fat adheres, and the piece itself nonetheless stays forbidden.
At ס״ק ו he sets out the difficulty that governs the condition of salting. The piece, he says, must have been salted first, for otherwise it would be forbidden on account of blood and one would need sixty in the dish against the whole of it (siman 69:11); but if it was salted with the fat lying upon it, it would have become forbidden at the salting and would no longer return to its permitted state. His answer opens two ways:
« י״ל דמיירי שהוא חלב דרבנן או חלב של בהמה כחושה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ו)
— fat forbidden rabbinically, or that of a lean animal, which at salting forbids only the thickness of a peel (siman 64:20 and siman 105); or else the piece contained sixty against the fat and part of it was cut away before the cooking. And he explains, as to the substance, why leaving it does not forbid it:
« אבל כשמניחה בקדירה הטעם הולך בכולו בשוה ואין החתיכה נאסרת » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ו)
At ס״ק ז, finally, he gives the act according to our practice: this piece being forbidden in any case, one removes it, and removing it does no harm to the rest —
« שהרי אינו מזיק כלום במה שמסירה » (ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ז)
whence his conclusion that there is no reason to leave it in the pot for nothing.
The Mehaber’s conduct and the Rama’s:
Position
The practical conduct
Source
The Mehaber
One removes nothing until the pot cools, lest the piece be left last with no sixty against it
שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו ס״ב ; ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב
The Rama (for whom a piece becomes neveilah)
One removes the forbidden piece, and the rest is permitted
רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו ס״ב ; ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ז
« ולפי מה דקיימא לן חתיכה נעשית נבילה מסיר החתיכה האסורה משם והשאר מותר » (רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו:ב)
6. Pischei Teshuva — the Noda bi-Yehuda and the Tiferes Tzvi
Pischei Teshuva ס״ק א — a way in which one could squeeze and permit. The Pischei Teshuva brings, in the name of the Noda bi-Yehuda (חלק יורה דעה סימן ך׳), that there would be room to say that if the piece absorbed an issur of its own kind, and received it through salting, one could squeeze it and permit it — and the piece itself would be permitted, even for us who hold that a piece becomes neveilah:
« אם בלע איסור שהוא מינו וקיבל איסור זה ע״י מליחה יש מקום לומר אפשר לסוחטו מותר ואף אותה חתיכה מותרת » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א)
The Noda bi-Yehuda writes this as a way to be considered, not as a settled ruling, and the Pischei Teshuva refers for the detail to the responsum itself.
Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ב — the Tiferes Tzvi, and the כבוש that forbids again. The Pischei Teshuva brings, in the name of the Tiferes Tzvi (חלק אורח חיים סימן כ״ד), that the same holds for soaking: if issur was cooked in a pot in which there was sixty, and the dish then cooled and the permitted matter diminished so that there is no longer sixty, the soaking forbids again, once it has lasted the required measure.
« דה״ה בכבוש אם נתבשל איסור בקדרה והיה ס׳ ואח״כ נצטנן התבשיל ונתמעט ההיתר שעכשיו אין ס׳ דאם נכבש כשיעור כבישה אוסר עתה התבשיל » (פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב)
and he writes this against the one who wished to say that soaking adds no further absorption. The moment of cooking therefore does not settle the matter, if the permitted matter later diminishes and the thing is still soaking in it.
The common root of these two entries. Both turn on the same question: when does the piece itself become permitted again, and when does it not. The Noda bi-Yehuda opens a way toward leniency — absorbed from its own kind, and through salting, one could squeeze it and permit it; the Tiferes Tzvi opens a way toward stringency — a soaking that occurs after the permitted matter has diminished forbids again. Both stand at the very point where seif 1 and seif 2 meet: when the absorbed issur “comes out entirely”, and when it does not.
The chakira that holds the whole siman: how is nullification assessed in a piece that absorbed issur — against the absorbed issur alone, or against the whole piece? And at what point does the piece itself remain in its prohibition?
לפי חשבון — for the Mehaber, sixty against the absorbed issur alone, and the piece joins the count.
אפשר לסוחטו אסור — the issur does not come out entirely, and the piece itself remains forbidden even though what is in the pot is permitted.
The sugya of the כחל — for the Taz (ס״ק א) the rule of what one would squeeze would hold only in meat and milk, the Sages having instituted in the likeness of the Torah; for the Rashba, whom he brings next, the reason is the concern that not all the milk came out — and then there is no distinction.
נבלל ונימוח against the dry — a liquid whose permitted matter has increased to sixty: everything is permitted; in the dry, the first piece stays in its prohibition.
חתיכה נעשית נבילה — for the Mehaber, in meat and milk only; for the Rama and our practice, in all issurim, and sixty against the whole piece (siman 92).
Nafka mina lema‘aseh — the practical consequences, as the commentaries cited here lay them out:
A piece that absorbed issur and fell into a pot — for Sephardim (Mehaber): sixty against the absorbed issur alone, in proportion; for Ashkenazim (Rama): sixty against the whole piece.
The piece itself — החתיכה עצמה אסורה(שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו:א) on both ways, whether by the rule of what one would squeeze or because it has become neveilah; the Noda bi-Yehuda, brought by the Pischei Teshuva (ס״ק א), opens a way to be considered for an issur of its own kind received through salting.
Where what was rendered forbidden was dry and there is sixty against it — the first piece stays in its prohibition; one removes it if one recognises it, and if one does not recognise it it is nullified, on condition that it not be a piece fit to be served (see the beginning of siman 101).
In seif 2 — for the Mehaber: one removes nothing until the pot cools; for the Rama: one removes the forbidden piece and the rest is permitted.
A soaking that occurs after the permitted matter has fallen below sixty forbids again (Tiferes Tzvi, פתחי תשובה ס״ק ב).
What blends and dissolves (liquid), the heter having increased to sixty
Everything is permitted, since all is blended and mixed
שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו ס״א
What was rendered forbidden while dry, with sixty against it
The first piece stays in its prohibition; one removes it if one recognises it
רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו ס״א ; ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ד
A piece that absorbed issur (Rama, a piece becomes neveilah)
The whole piece is neveilah; sixty against the whole piece (see siman 92)
רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו ס״א ; ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ג
A piece bearing fat, in a pot in which there is sixty (Mehaber)
One removes nothing until the pot cools
שו״ע יו״ד ק״ו ס״ב ; ט״ז יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב
The same case according to our practice (Rama)
One removes the forbidden piece, and the rest is permitted
רמ״א יו״ד ק״ו ס״ב ; ש״ך יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ז
An issur of its own kind, absorbed through salting
A way to be considered: one could squeeze it and permit it, and the piece itself would be permitted
פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק א (נודע ביהודה)
A soaking after the heter has fallen below sixty
It forbids again, soaking being like cooking
פתחי תשובה יו״ד ק״ו ס״ק ב (תפארת צבי)
Table — the central machlokos of the siman
Subject
First position
Second position
The measure of nullification in a piece that absorbed
The Mehaber — sixty against the absorbed issur alone, in proportion
The Rama — sixty against the whole piece (siman 92)
Does a piece become neveilah in other issurim
The Mehaber — in meat and milk only
The Rama — in all issurim, according to the practice
Where the rule of what one would squeeze holds
The Taz — in meat and milk, in the likeness of what is of the Torah
The Rashba, brought by the Taz — everywhere, out of the concern that not all came out
Liquid against dry
Liquid whose heter increased to sixty — everything is permitted
Dry — the first piece stays in its prohibition
The conduct when removing the piece
The Mehaber — remove nothing until it cools
The Rama — remove the forbidden piece and the rest is permitted
Table — the sources of the sugya
Gemara: חולין ק׳ ע״א (the sugya of the כחל: “it fell into another pot”, and the כחל itself forbidden) · חולין ק״ח ע״א (חתיכה נעשית נבילה) · חולין צ״ז ע״ב (טעם כעיקר and nullification in sixty)
Rishonim: רש״י · תוספות · רמב״ם · מגיד משנה · רא״ש · רשב״א (תורת הבית) · מרדכי · רבנו אפרים · סמ״ג · סה״ת · ראב״ן · טור · בית יוסף
Acharonim: רמ״א · ש״ך · ט״ז · מהרש״ל · דרכי משה · פתחי תשובה · נודע ביהודה · תפארת צבי