A first approach to Siman 107: the 2 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. When one cooks many eggs (or small fish) together and only one is forbidden, why not take them out one by one while hot? The fear that the forbidden one may remain last without sixty (nishar baacharona), the remedy (cooling or pouring cold water), the great question "do we presume that the forbidden item remained?" (lo machzikinan issura), the repulsive creature (zevuv) discarded without forbidding anything (notein taam lifgam), and the spoon (kaf) that lifted a forbidden item.
Topic: Cooking eggs and the order of removal, the repulsive creature, the spoon Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״ז
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 2 seifim and the glosses of the Rama
2.Context: why this siman follows the laws of nullification and mixtures
4.The order of removal: the "how to remove safely" table
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.The spoon (כף): why there is no chatikha naasit nevila for a vessel
8.Modern practical cases: hard-boiled eggs, an insect in the soup, a non-kosher spoon
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 2 seifim
Siman 107 deals with two very concrete kitchen situations, gathered under one heading: דין המבשל ביצה ודבר מיאוס הנמצא בתבשיל — "the law of one who cooks eggs, and of a repulsive thing found in food." The first seif addresses the order of removal when one cooks many items and only one is forbidden; the second, the repulsive creature that fell into a dish and the spoon that lifted a forbidden item. The Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) lays down the rule, and the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) to clarify the practice. Let us discover the two seifim.
Seif 1 — The order of removal: the forbidden one that remains last (seif 1)
Seif 1 — Cooking many eggs and the fear of nishar baacharona
One who cooks many eggs in their shell must not take them out of the water in which they cooked before they cool, or else pour cold water over them to cool them, and afterward take them out — because we fear that a chick (אֶפְרוֹחַ) may be found in one of them, which would be forbidden. Implied: if one took them out one by one while hot, perhaps the one containing the chick would remain with the last ones and forbid them, since no sixty would remain to nullify it. Gloss of the Rama: and if one did not do so but poured them into a bowl (קערה) and one was found treif → some forbid everything (יֵשׁ אוֹסְרִין), for we fear that the treif one remained last without sixty in the pot to nullify it, which forbids the pot's contents, which in turn re-forbids everything; likewise with small fish in which an impure fish is found and one did not pour them all at once. And some permit in every case (יֵשׁ מַתִּירִין), since we do not presume the forbidden item (לֹא מַחְזְקִינַן אִסּוּרָא) to say that it remained without sixty (B"Y in the name of Rabbenu Shimshon) — and this is the main view; and even according to those who forbid, one does not forbid the vessels in which one cooked, for we keep the vessel on its presumption (מַעֲמִידִין הַכְּלִי עַל חֶזְקָתוֹ).
The central idea: as long as the eggs (or fish) are hot, the forbidden one keeps emitting its taste. If one removes them one by one, the volume of permitted food in the pot decreases with each removal — and it may turn out that the forbidden item is precisely the last to come out, when no permitted food remains for the sixty that would nullify it. The Mehaber's remedy: cool first (let them cool or pour cold water), then remove. The Rama's great debate concerns the case that has already happened (bedieved): do we really presume that the forbidden item remained without sixty? The main view (ikar) is lenient — we do not presume the forbidden item.
Seif 2 — The repulsive creature; the spoon (seif 2)
Seif 2 — The fly (זבוב) one discards, and the spoon (כף) that lifted a forbidden item
A fly (זבוב) and the like, among the repulsive things from which a person's soul recoils (דְּבָרִים הַמְאוּסִים שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָצָה בָּהֶם), found in a dish: one discards it and the dish is permitted, for the discharge (פליטה) of repulsive things does not forbid. Gloss of the Rama: such is the prevalent custom; although there are stringent ones, the one who is lenient loses nothing, the lenient view is the main one, and one does not change the custom. And if one lifted with the spoon (כף) an impure fish from the pot, or some other non-repulsive thing, it is forbidden to return the spoon to the pot; if one returned it, one needs sixty in the pot against the forbidden item, and not against the whole spoon, for we do not say "the piece becomes nevila" for a vessel (אֵין אוֹמְרִים חֲתִיכָה נַעֲשֵׂית נְבֵלָה בִּכְלִי). But if there was a little of the dish along with the forbidden item on the spoon and one returned it, one needs also sixty against that little bit of dish, for it became nevila on the spoon (Issur ve-Heter ha-Aroch, kelal 27).
Two rules in this seif: (a) the repulsive creature (the fly) gives only a spoiled taste — notein taam lifgam — which does not forbid: one discards it, the dish stays permitted (a direct link with Siman 104). (b) The spoon that lifted a forbidden item must not be returned to the pot; if it was returned, one nullifies the forbidden item it absorbed by sixty against that forbidden item alone — not against the whole spoon, because a vessel does not become nevila. The only exception: if a little dish was stuck to the forbidden item on the spoon, that bit became nevila → sixty also against it.
2. Context — where this siman sits
Siman 107 continues the great laws of mixtures (taarovot) and nullification by sixty (bitul be-shishim) studied in the previous simanim. But it applies them to a particular case: not a forbidden item already diluted in a dish, but a forbidden item that is still identifiable (an egg, a fish) that must be removed — and the whole risk lies in the order and the timing of removal. The question is no longer "how much permitted food is needed?" but "by taking out the items one by one, won't we deplete the permitted food until no sixty remains when the forbidden one comes out?".
The great questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
How to remove many eggs/fish safely
Seif 1
Cool first (or pour cold water), then remove
If it already happened: do we presume the forbidden item remained?
Seif 1 (Rama)
Lenient — lo machzikinan issura (and this is the main view)
Are the cooking vessels forbidden?
Seif 1 (Rama)
No — we keep the vessel on its chazaka
A repulsive creature in the dish
Seif 2
Discard it, the dish is permitted (notein taam lifgam, link 104)
The spoon that lifted a forbidden item, returned
Seif 2 (Rama)
60 against the forbidden item alone (no chnn for a vessel)
The transversal idea: everything is a matter of order, presumption and measure. In what order does one remove? Do we presume the forbidden item remained without sixty (the central debate)? And when a non-spoiling forbidden item (fish) has been lifted, how much is needed to nullify it — against it alone, or against the whole vessel?
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 107, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing how the forbidden item remains, is presumed and is nullified during removal.
נשאר באחרונה — "Remained last": when taking items out one by one from a hot pot, if one is forbidden (an egg with a chick or blood, a treif or impure fish), it may be precisely the last to come out — at a moment when not enough permitted food remains for the sixty that would nullify it. It then re-forbids the rest. The remedy: cool first, or pour out everything at once.
לא מחזקינן איסורא — "We do not presume the forbidden item": a rule of presumption (R. Shimshon), the main view for the Rama. We do not assume, in a case that already occurred, that the forbidden item remained precisely in the minority without sixty; it is presumed to be in the majority (issura beruba ita). The stringent view (yesh osrin) sees a real concern here.
מעמידין הכלי על חזקתו — "We keep the vessel on its presumption": even according to the stringent ones, one does not forbid the vessels in which one cooked. The vessel retains its presumption of being permitted (chazaka), since there is no proof that the forbidden item remained in it.
נ״ט לפגם — Notein taam lifgam: "imparting taste for the worse." The taste discharged by a repulsive thing (fly, creature) spoils the dish rather than improving it → it does not forbid (seif 2; the principle is developed in Siman 104). One discards the creature and the dish stays permitted.
דברים המאוסים — Devarim hame'usim: "the repulsive things" from which a person's soul recoils. Their discharge (peletah) is deemed spoiling, hence harmless to the status of the dish (seif 2).
חתיכה נעשית נבילה (chnn) — "the piece becomes nevila": a permitted food that absorbs a forbidden item without sixty may itself become forbidden entirely. Seif 2 teaches precisely that this principle does not apply to a vessel (the spoon): one nullifies only the absorbed forbidden item, not the whole spoon.
The thread linking the two seifim: in both cases an identifiable forbidden item sits alongside permitted food, and the whole question is against what — and whether — sixty is required. For the egg/fish that remained last (seif 1), we do not presume that the sixty is missing. For the spoon (seif 2), we count sixty against the forbidden item alone, never against the whole spoon.
4. The order of removal — the "how to remove safely" table
The whole of seif 1 can be summed up in a table. We cross how was it removed? with what was found?, and look at whether the contents stay permitted.
Situation
What we fear
Result
Cooled first (or cold water poured), then removed
No more hot discharge
🟢 The recommended way — no problem
Poured all at once into a bowl, everything came out together
The forbidden item does not remain alone
🟢 Permitted
Removed one by one while hot, one found treif / impure (Rama)
The forbidden item remained last without 60
🟡 yesh osrin vs yesh matirin → lenient (ikar)
And the cooking vessels?
—
🟢 Not forbidden (chazaka), even per the stringent
Doubtful case: was it poured all at once?
Doubt as to how it was removed
🟡 One tends to be stringent (see higher levels)
The logic in one sentence: removing one by one while hot is risky, since the forbidden item could come out last without any sixty remaining. The remedy is simple: cool first, or pour everything out together. And if it already happened, the main view is lenient — we do not presume the forbidden item remained — and the vessels stay permitted.
The Rama's point (seif 1): between the יש אוסרין (who fear the forbidden item remained last) and the יש מתירין (who do not presume the forbidden item), the Rama rules that the main view (ikar) is the lenient one — lo machzikinan issura — and that, in any case, the vessels are not forbidden.
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 principal nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (there is 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 and s.k. 4 — only lechatchila; the egg / fish asymmetry
The Taz (s.k. 1) notes that the Mehaber speaks only of lechatchila: a priori, one does not remove items one by one while hot — but bedieved (if already done) it is permitted, as the yesh matirin hold. And in a long entry (s.k. 4) he sets out the two reasons for the leniency: for R. Shimshon, it is that we do not presume the forbidden item (lo machzikinan); for R. Baruch, it is that the few forbidden fish are nullified in the majority (dry-in-dry) of the large number. Hence an asymmetry: for fish, one cooks a great number → there is a majority → lenient; but for eggs, one does not cook twenty or thirty → no majority → the Maharshal is stringent ("eggs forbidden, fish permitted").
A key entry of the Shach
Shach s.k. 5 — no chnn for a vessel; new or old
The Shach (s.k. 5) explains the end of seif 2: we do not say chnn ("the piece becomes nevila") for a vessel of wood or metal that is new → sixty against the forbidden item alone suffices. But a vessel that is old or earthenware (porcelain) → we do say chnn → sixty would be required against the whole spoon (cf. Siman 98:5). The Shach (s.k. 2) adds that the vessels are only permitted after 24 hours (Maharil) — proof that the Rishonim here are speaking of a genuine prohibition.
We see the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they explain the mechanism (the two reasons for the leniency, the egg/fish asymmetry) and rule (lechatchila / bedieved; no chnn for a new vessel). This is exactly what is studied in depth at the Lamdan level.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect the custom and refine the practice. Here are his most striking interventions in our siman.
On seif 1 — yesh osrin / yesh matirin, and leniency as the main view
Gloss of the Rama: ויש מתירין בכל ענין דלא מחזקינן איסורא… וכן עיקר — "some permit in every case, since we do not presume the forbidden item… and this is the main view." Where some (yesh osrin) fear that the treif one remained last without sixty, the Rama rules that the lenient view prevails. He adds: אפילו להאוסרין אין אוסרין הכלים… דמעמידין הכלי על חזקתו — even according to the stringent ones, the vessels are not forbidden.
On seif 2 — the fly: the lenient custom; the spoon
Gloss of the Rama: וכן נוהגין, אף על גב שיש מחמירין, המקל לא הפסיד וכן עיקר, ואין לשנות המנהג — "such is the custom; although there are stringent ones, the lenient one loses nothing, and this is the main view — one does not change the custom" (for the repulsive creature). Then he teaches the rule of the spoon: lifting a forbidden item with it, do not return it; if it was returned → sixty against the forbidden item alone, for אין אומרים חתיכה נעשית נבילה בכלי — no chnn for a vessel; except if there was a little dish on the spoon, which became nevila → sixty also against that bit.
The Rama carefully distinguishes the basic law (the Mehaber) from the practice: for removal (seif 1) as for the repulsive creature (seif 2), he adopts the lenient view as the main one (lo machzikinan issura; notein taam lifgam), while specifying the practical limits (vessels not forbidden, sixty against the forbidden item alone for the spoon).
7. The spoon (כף) — why there is no chnn for a vessel
The end of seif 2 — the practical conceptual heart of the siman — deserves a pause. What exactly happens when a spoon has lifted a forbidden item and was then returned to the pot?
Everything rests on a distinction. The spoon, through hot contact, absorbed a little of the forbidden item (the impure fish). Two questions:
How much did the spoon absorb? Only the forbidden item that touched it — so we nullify by sixty against that absorbed forbidden item, not against the whole spoon.
Does the spoon itself become nevila? No — a vessel does not undergo chnn (if it is new, of wood or metal). Only what it actually absorbed counts.
Case
chnn?
Sixty against what?
Spoon that is new (wood / metal) having lifted a forbidden item
🟢 No
Against the absorbed forbidden item only
Old / earthenware spoon (porcelain)
🟡 Yes (cf. Siman 98:5)
Against the whole spoon
Spoon with a little dish stuck to the forbidden item
🔴 That little dish becomes nevila
Also against that little dish
The repulsive creature (fly) discharged into the dish
—
Nothing to nullify (notein taam lifgam)
The golden rule: do not return to the pot a spoon used to lift a forbidden item. If you did, it is not the whole spoon that "contaminates" — we count only sixty against the absorbed forbidden item, for a vessel does not become nevila. But beware of the little dish left stuck to it: that, indeed, became nevila.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — Taking hard-boiled eggs out one by one from the pot
One has cooked a large pot of hard-boiled eggs in their shell, and begins to take them out one by one while they are still hot (seif 1). The risk: if one contained a chick (or blood), it could be the last to come out, with not enough water/eggs left for the sixty. The right reflex: let them cool or pour cold water before removing. And if it already happened, the main view is lenient (lo machzikinan issura) and the vessels stay permitted. For the halacha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — An insect that fell into the soup
A fly (or a small repulsive creature) is found in the pot of soup (seif 2). According to the siman, one discards it and the dish stays permitted, for what a repulsive thing discharges spoils and does not forbid (notein taam lifgam, link to Siman 104). This applies to a repulsive creature: a non-repulsive insect (or in a large quantity), or an acidic/fermented medium, may change the picture. For the halacha lema'aseh — and to verify the exact status of the insect — consult your Rav.
Case 3 — A spoon used for non-kosher food, returned to the pot
One tasted or lifted a non-kosher food with a spoon, then returned it to the boiling kosher pot (seif 2). One never returns such a spoon. If one did, sixty is needed against the forbidden item the spoon absorbed — not against the whole spoon (a vessel does not undergo chnn), unless it is an old / earthenware spoon. And if a little dish was stuck to the forbidden item, sixty also against it. For the halacha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the three cases: before panicking, ask the right questions — is the forbidden item identifiable and hot? do we really presume it remained without sixty? is it a repulsive thing (which only spoils)? and against what do we count the sixty? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details.
9. Summary of Siman 107
The essentials of Siman 107 in a few sentences:
When cooking many eggs (or small fish), one does not take them out one by one while hot: one cools first or pours cold water (seif 1).
Why? Lest the forbidden item (an egg with a chick/blood, a treif/impure fish) remain last without sixty (nishar baacharona) and re-forbid everything.
If it already happened: we do not presume the forbidden item (lo machzikinan issura) — the lenient view is the main one (Rama, R. Shimshon).
Even according to the stringent, the cooking vessels are not forbidden (chazaka).
A repulsive creature (fly) found in the dish: one discards it, the dish is permitted, for its discharge only spoils (notein taam lifgam, link 104).
The spoon (כף) that lifted a forbidden item: do not return it; if returned → sixty against the forbidden item alone, not against the whole spoon.
Reason: a vessel does not undergo chnn (except old / earthenware, Siman 98:5).
Exception: a little dish stuck to the forbidden item on the spoon becomes nevila → sixty also against it.
Memory table
Situation
Measure
Many eggs/fish to remove
🟢 Cool first, or pour cold water, then remove
One-by-one removal already done, one found forbidden
🟡 Lenient: lo machzikinan issura (and this is the main view)
The cooking vessels
🟢 Not forbidden (we keep the vessel on its chazaka)
Repulsive creature (fly) in the dish
🟢 Discard it, dish permitted (notein taam lifgam)
Spoon (new) that lifted a forbidden item, returned
🟡 Sixty against the forbidden item alone (no chnn)
A little dish stuck to the forbidden item on the spoon
🔴 Sixty also against it (it became nevila)
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
Why do we not remove the eggs one by one while they are hot (seif 1)? What are the two remedies?
Explain נשאר באחרונה. Why could the forbidden item remain without sixty?
What is לא מחזקינן איסורא? Which view does the Rama hold as the main one (seif 1)?
Are the cooking vessels forbidden, even according to the stringent? Why (chazaka)?
Why does a fly found in the dish not forbid it (seif 2)? Which principle (notein taam lifgam) and which cross-reference (Siman 104)?
Why does one not return to the pot the כף that lifted a forbidden item? If returned, against what do we count the sixty?
Why not against the whole spoon? Explain "we do not say chatikha naasit nevila for a vessel."
What does it change that a little dish was stuck to the forbidden item on the spoon?
What is the egg / fish asymmetry (Taz, Maharshal)? Why are the fish more readily permitted?
What does the Taz (s.k. 1) say about lechatchila / bedieved? And the Shach (s.k. 5) about a new vs old vessel?
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the two reasons for the leniency (R. Shimshon lo machzikinan vs R. Baruch nullified in the majority), the egg/fish asymmetry (Taz s.k. 4), the yesod of chatikha naasit nevila for a vessel, anchored in the sugyot
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (order of removal, new/old spoon), the golden rules, and quick memorization of the 2 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halacha lema'asse: practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pitchei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on concrete cases
The sources for this level can be consulted on Sefaria: