✦ ❖ ✦

DAAT · LEVEL 4 — HALAKHA LE-MA'ASSE / PSAK

שולחן ערוך · יורה דעה

Siman 109 — Dry-in-Dry (Yavesh be-Yavesh): An Unidentifiable Forbidden Piece Is Nullified in the Majority (Chad be-Trei) — Practical psika

סימן ק״ט · הלכה למעשה

דִּין יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב

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״ט (ב' 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 109.
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 (how many pieces, same kind or not, identifiable or not, whether one will cook the mixture) that only a posek who sees your situation can decide.

📑 תוכן העניינים

שורש הסימן — יבש ביבש, אינה ראויה להתכבד, וביטול ברוב (סעיף א')
פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מסגרת ההלכה בב' סעיפים
חד בתרי בטיל — ממה נפשך, אחד אחד (סעיף א')
מין במינו מול שלא במינו — שישים שלא במינו (סעיף א')
דרבנן ודאורייתא ; רוב מנין — ש״ך ופתחי תשובה (סעיף א')
השליך אחד / רבי עקיבא איגר — הקל והחמיר (סעיף א')
בישול התערובת — נודע לפני / להרבות עד שישים (סעיף ב')
מבטל איסור ומליחה כבישול — שתי קדירות (סעיף ב')
פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — Yabia Omer, Yalkut Yossef, Or LeTzion
פסיקת האשכנזים — acharonim and contemporary poskim
מקרים מודרניים — Meatball, cookie, pieces of meat, cooking the mixture
סיכום מעשי וטבלאות — ולמעשה, שאל את רבך

📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — Seif Alef

חֲתִיכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לְהִתְכַּבֵּד שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בַּאֲחֵרוֹת, מִין בְּמִינָהּ, יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ — חַד בִּתְרֵי בָּטֵל, וּמֻתָּר לְאָכְלָן אָדָם אֶחָד כָּל אַחַת בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, אֲבָל לֹא יֹאכַל שְׁלָשְׁתָּן יַחַד. וְיֵשׁ אוֹסְרִין שֶׁיֹּאכְלֵם אָדָם אֶחָד אֲפִלּוּ זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ.

הגה: וְכֵן רָאוּי לִנְהֹג לְכַתְּחִלָּה ; וְיֵשׁ מַחְמִירִין לְהַשְׁלִיךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן... וְכָל זֶה בְּמִינוֹ, אֲבָל שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִינוֹ — אֲפִלּוּ יָבֵשׁ בְּיָבֵשׁ צָרִיךְ שִׁשִּׁים ; וְאֵין חִלּוּק בָּזֶה בֵּין דְּרַבָּנָן לִדְאוֹרָיְתָא.

חד בתרי בטיל. A piece that is not worthy of being presented (אינה ראויה להתכבד) that mixed into others, of its own kind, dry into dry — one in two is nullified, and one person may eat them each on its own, but he shall not eat all three together. And some forbid one person to eat them even one after another.

Rama: and thus one should act לכתחילה; and some are stringent (יש מחמירין) to throw one of them away — but this is only a mere stringency. All this within its own kind; but not of its own kind (שלא במינו), even dry-in-dry one needs 60; and there is no difference in this between דרבנן and דאורייתא.

— Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 109:1 · talmudic basis: the sugya of Chullin (אחרי רבים להטות, nullification in a majority, chad be-trei) · Sefaria YD 109:1

1. שורש הסימן — dry in dry, and nullification in the majority

The foundation. Siman 109 deals with dry mixed into dry (יבש ביבש): a prohibition that does not blend (אין נבלל), that remains whole and stands on its own, but mixed into permitted food without one being able to recognize it. Two conditions make it nullify in the majority: the prohibition is not worthy of being presented (אינה ראויה להתכבד — otherwise it never nullifies, simanim 101 and 110), and it mixed within its own kind (מין במינו). The whole siman turns on one principle and one measure: ביטול ברוב (nullification in a majority — אחרי רבים להטות) in the same kind, and שישים in a different kind.

Why chad be-trei, without 60 (Taz s.k. 1). The Taz explains that חד בתרי בטל = רוב (majority): the Torah itself nullifies the prohibition in the majority (אחרי רבים להטות), and the Sages did not require 60 here, since the piece is not ראויה להתכבד. The only חומרא retained is not to eat the three together — by the logic of מִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ. The Shach (s.k. 6) adds that even a large piece of prohibition nullifies in two smaller ones, as long as one does not know which is the prohibition: it is the majority of number that counts, not the volume.

The logic of מִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ (Shach s.k. 7, in the name of the Rashba)

Why is each one on its own permitted, but not all together? When one eats the first piece, one says: "perhaps this is the permitted one"; the second: "the permitted is the majority"; and even the last: "the prohibition has already been eaten." So each one on its own is permitted. But to eat them all together is to consume the prohibition for certain. Hence the rule: two-and-one is acceptable, only the three together is not.

2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the siman

Siman 109 contains 2 seifim. The Mehaber lays the basic rule (chad be-trei nullifies in the same kind; 60 in a different kind); the Rama (הגה) glosses and sets our conduct לכתחילה (eating them one by one), the stringency of throwing one away, and the absence of a דרבנן/דאורייתא difference. Seif 2 deals with the case where one cooks the already-nullified mixture. Here is the overall map, as it emerges from the text itself.

Seif	Subject	Psak (anchored in the text)
1	חד בתרי בטיל; מין / שלא במינו	A piece not ראוי להתכבד mixed within its kind dry-in-dry → one in two nullifies; one may eat them each on its own, but not all three together (and some forbid even one after another). Rama: thus לכתחילה; יש מחמירין to throw one away (a mere stringency). שלא במינו → even dry it needs 60; no difference דרבנן/דאורייתא (B"Y). Cf. siman 122 for mixed utensils.
2	cooking the nullified mixture	A dry-in-dry nullified one-in-two, if cooked all together: even to eat them one at a time it is forbidden without 60, for the broth (רוטב) imparts taste and is absorbed. To cook them without 60, one may add (להרבות עליהם) up to 60 then cook — no מבטל איסור (each is already permitted). Rama: if known before cooking → all permitted (already nullified dry, does not revert — Rosh/Tosafot, עיקר); in case of loss → one relies on the lenient.

כלל הפסק של הסימן :
מידה אחת חותכת את הסימן — רוב (חד בתרי בטיל) במין במינו יבש ביבש, ושישים שלא במינו ; ויסוד מעשי — מִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ, אוכלן אחד אחד ולא שלשתן יחד. וכל זה בחתיכה שאינה ראויה להתכבד ; וכשבא לבשל את התערובת, חוזר וצריך שישים (שהרוטב נותן טעם), אלא אם נודע לו קודם הבישול.

3. חד בתרי בטיל — one in two is nullified

The Mehaber and the Rama. For the Mehaber, the prohibition that is not ראוי להתכבד, mixed within its kind dry-in-dry, is nullified one in two: one person may eat them each on its own (one view forbids even one after another, out of concern for מיחזי כמבטל). The Rama rules that thus one should act לכתחילה; he reports the stringency (יש מחמירין) of throwing one away or giving it to a non-Jew, noting that this is only a mere stringency (חומרא בעלמא), not the strict law.

After throwing one away (Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 2). The Pitchei Teshuva, in the name of the Noda BiYhouda (תניינא 47), rules a major practical point: if one followed the stringency and threw away one piece, one may then eat the two remaining ones together — one does not say "the prohibition remained in the majority" (איסורא ברובא אישתייר). By throwing one away, one is deemed to have removed the prohibition, and the rest is entirely permitted.

Le-ma'asse (chad be-trei). For a prohibition not worthy of being presented, mixed within its kind and dry, at 2 against 1: it is nullified in the majority, and one may eat them one by one (never all together). Our conduct לכתחילה is the Rama's. Some add the stringency of throwing one away — and then the two remaining ones may even be eaten together. Knowing whether the prohibition is truly "not ראוי להתכבד" and "of its own kind" is a question of fact — for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

4. מין במינו / שלא במינו — when 60 is needed

Type of mixture	Measure	Why (anchored)
מין במינו (same kind), dry	chad be-trei — the majority suffices, no 60	From the Torah the kind already nullifies in the majority even לח בלח (98:2); the Sages did not add stringency when dry
שלא במינו (different kind), dry	60 against the prohibition	From the Torah 60 is needed לח בלח (taste matters); a גזירה lest one cook them and reach a דאורייתא prohibition (Ran)
קמח בקמח (flour into flour)	Treated as לח בלח	Shach s.k. 3: flour is reckoned "blended," not as dry

The root of the distinction (Taz s.k. 2). The Taz explains: in מין במינו, the permitted and the prohibition have the same taste; from the Torah nullification is in the majority, and when dry the Sages added nothing → no 60, even מדרבנן. In שלא במינו, the tastes differ; from the Torah 60 would be needed (לח בלח), and they decreed 60 even when dry out of concern that one might come to cook them together and fall into a דאורייתא prohibition. This is a גזירה pointing toward seif 2.

Le-ma'asse (mino / chelo bemino). Same kind and dry → the majority suffices (chad be-trei). Different kind → one needs 60 against the prohibition, even when dry. Flour into flour is treated as "blended" (60). Determining whether two foods are "of the same kind" (same taste, same halakhic name) is delicate — for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

5. דרבנן ודאורייתא ; רוב מנין — the fine points of nullification

No difference דרבנן / דאורייתא (Beit Yossef). The Rama, in the name of the B"Y, rules that both require a majority (chad be-trei), and not chad be-chad (one against one). Even a rabbinic prohibition does not nullify at parity: one needs a real majority of the permitted. The Shach (s.k. 9-10) nuances one point: שלא במינו דרבנן does not require 60 — for the 60 here is itself only מדרבנן (a גזירה lest one cook), and one does not decree a גזירה upon a גזירה; the Shach thereby reconciles the glosses of the Or Zaroua, against the Maharai.

Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 1): on the meaning of "majority." The Pri Hadash holds that a tiny bit more than half suffices (רוב מנין). The PT also reports the debate over the כפל (must one have the double of the permitted?) — מדרבנן according to the Minhat Yaakov, the Pri Megadim and the Chatam Sofer (99) — and the reverse case of a large piece of permitted nullified in several pieces of prohibition (the majority of number overrides volume).

Le-ma'asse (deorayta / derabbanan, majority). In the same kind when dry, one needs a true majority of the permitted (chad be-trei), whether the prohibition is deorayta or derabbanan. For שלא במינו derabbanan, the Shach is lenient (no 60), but this is a delicate question that depends on the exact nature of the prohibition. Counting the "majority" (number / double / volume) is not trivial — for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

6. השליך אחד ; רבי עקיבא איגר — leniency and stringency

Two practical fine points of seif 1

Throwing one away (Rama + PT s.k. 2): the stringency of throwing one away (or giving it to a non-Jew) is only a חומרא בעלמא; and once done, the Noda BiYhouda permits eating the two remaining ones together — one does not say the prohibition stayed in them.
R. Akiva Eiger (PT s.k. 3): he is stringent in a neighboring case — שלא במינו when dry, part of which was lost without knowing whether there were 60: forbidden (≠ לח בלח / נשפך, where one would be lenient), because when dry the permitted does not become forbidden, the חזקת איסור stands, and one fears שמא יבשלם (lest one cook them).

הכרעה. The two fine points complement each other: after the nullification is accomplished (and all the more after throwing one away), one is lenient (Noda BiYhouda); but as long as the doubt about the amount of permitted remains (שלא במינו, part lost), one is stringent (R. Akiva Eiger) — precisely because, when dry, the permitted does not "dilute" the prohibition the way a liquid would.

Le-ma'asse (throwing one away, loss). Once the nullification is done according to the rules, one need not fear that "the prohibition remained"; but a doubt about the presence of the 60 in שלא במינו (with part lost) remains severe (R. Akiva Eiger). Distinguishing "nullification already accomplished" from "a doubt still open" is subtle — for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

7. בישול התערובת — if one cooks the mixture (seif 2)

יבש ביבש שנתבטל חד בתרי, אם בישלם כולם יחד — אפילו לאכלן אחת אחת אסור אם אין שם ששים, מפני שהרוטב נותן טעם ונבלע בחתיכות. ואם רוצה לבשלם יחד שלא בששים — מרבה עליהם עד ששים ומבשלם, ואין בזה משום מבטל איסור.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ט:ב

Cooking what was already nullified. A dry-in-dry mixture nullified one-in-two stays permitted piece by piece. But if one cooks them all together, the broth (רוטב) diffuses the taste of the prohibition into all the pieces: then, even to eat them each on its own, it is forbidden without 60. Cooking awakens a mode of nullification (taste, לח בלח) that the dry state did not require.

הכרעה (Taz). The Taz answers: here the taste of the prohibition is perceptible in itself upon cooking — unlike siman 98:2 where מינו רבה עליו (the permitted kind "dominates" the prohibition and nullifies it even when cooked). In our siman the prohibition was nullified only by number (when dry); it was never nullified as to taste, and cooking brings out precisely that taste.

Adding up to 60 — no מבטל איסור (Taz s.k. 3). The Mehaber's remedy: one who wishes to cook the mixture without there being 60 may add (להרבות עליהם) up to 60 and then cook. There is no transgression of "nullifying a prohibition לכתחילה" (אין מבטל איסור), since each piece is already permitted in itself (chad be-trei nullified it): one is merely removing the taste that would surface upon cooking.

Le-ma'asse (cooking the mixture). A nullified dry mixture stays permitted piece by piece, but cooking it together requires 60 (the broth diffuses taste). Without 60, two paths: do not cook them together, or add permitted food up to 60 before cooking (this is not מבטל איסור). Evaluating whether there is "60" in a real pot is technical — for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

8. מבטל איסור ; מליחה כבישול — known before, two pots

הגה: יש אומרים שאם נודע התערובת קודם שנתבשלו יחד — הכל מותר, דכיון שכבר נתבטל ביבש אינו חוזר ונאסר (טור בשם הרא״ש, ורבינו ירוחם בשם התוספות, וכתב שכן עיקר) ; ובמקום הפסד יש לסמוך אמקילין.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד ק״ט:ב, הגה

Known before cooking → all permitted (Rama). The Rama reports a decisive יש אומרים: if the mixture was known (נודע) before one cooked them together, all is permitted, for what was already nullified when dry does not become forbidden again by cooking. This is the Tur in the name of the Rosh, and R. Yerucham in the name of the Tosafot — and the Rama writes that this is the essential view (וכן עיקר). In case of loss (הפסד), one may rely on the lenient.

Le-ma'asse (known before, salting). If the dry nullification was known before cooking, all stays permitted (Rosh/Tosafot, עיקר); otherwise, or if one salted unknowingly, one reasons with 60 (and two pots may combine). In case of great loss, one relies on the lenient. Knowing "was it known before? was it salted?" is a question of fact — for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

9. פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — the contemporary Sephardic psika

The contemporary Sephardic psika (the school of Rav Ovadia Yossef, Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Chaoul) starts exactly from the Mehaber's framework: in the same kind when dry, חד בתרי בטיל without 60, and one eats them one by one (the stringency of throwing one away is only a חומרא, of which the Sephardic Mehaber does not make a strict law); in a different kind, 60. Rav Ovadia tends, for what is not a grave prohibition, to be lenient in case of loss (relying on the nullification already accomplished, like the Rama "וכן עיקר") and not to multiply stringencies beyond the din.

10. פסיקת האשכנזים — the Ashkenazi psika

Concrete case	Sephardic orientation (to be verified)
A non-kosher meatball mixed into two identical ones	Same kind, dry → חד בתרי בטיל; one eats them one by one. Throwing one away = a mere חומרא; thereafter the two remaining ones together (Noda BiYhouda).
A mixture of different kinds (one being טריפה)	שלא במינו → 60 against the prohibition; finely crumbled or several kinds → 60 (Shach s.k. 8).
Cooking such a mixture	Known before cooking → all permitted (Rosh, עיקר); otherwise → 60, or add permitted food up to 60 (no מבטל איסור).
Salted before it was known	מליחה כבישול → the dry nullification does not help, one needs 60 (PT s.k. 4); lenient in case of loss.

The Ashkenazi psika starts from the Rama and the acharonim (Hokhmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD). Two traits of the Rama dominate this siman: (1) one acts לכתחילה according to the din (eating them one by one), often with the stringency of throwing one away where there is no loss; (2) "וכן עיקר" — what was nullified when dry and known before cooking does not become forbidden again. The Shach and the Pitchei Teshuva set the fine points (שלא במינו דרבנן without 60; two pots; מליחה כבישול).

Concrete case	Ashkenazi orientation (to be verified)
חד בתרי בטיל	One eats them one by one, never all three together; the stringency of throwing one away where there is no loss (יש מחמירין).
שלא במינו	60 even when dry; דרבנן → the Shach is lenient (no 60, s.k. 9-10).
Cooking the mixture	Known before → all permitted ("וכן עיקר"); otherwise → 60, or add up to 60.
Two pots / salting	Known → lenient (ספק דרבנן); not known → ספק דאורייתא, the pots combine (Shach s.k. 12); salted unknowingly → 60 (PT s.k. 4).

Chabad — only through real sources. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav does not cover Yoreh De'ah; there is therefore no "Da'at HaRav" on siman 109. 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.

11. מקרים מודרניים — today's kitchen

How siman 109 illuminates the kitchen. Three tools from the siman serve to decide the modern cases: (1) chad be-trei nullifies in the same kind when dry (seif 1); (2) 60 in a different kind (seif 1); (3) cooking that requires 60 except when "known before" (seif 2). All this presupposes a prohibition that is not ראוי להתכבד; a food "worthy of being presented" (whole, important) never nullifies (simanim 101, 110).

Modern case	Tool of the siman	Orientation (to be confirmed with the Rav)
A non-kosher meatball (or cookie) fallen among identical ones	Seif 1 (chad be-trei, same kind)	Nullified one in two if it is not ראוי להתכבד; one eats them one by one, not all together. Throwing one away = a חומרא, then the remaining ones together.
Pieces of meat one of which is טריפה, unidentified	Seif 1 (same kind, dry)	Same kind → chad be-trei (the majority of number nullifies, even a large טריפה in two small ones — Shach s.k. 6); one eats them one by one.
Several kinds one of which is forbidden, or a crumbled prohibition	Seif 1 (different kind)	שלא במינו → 60 against the prohibition, even when dry (Shach s.k. 8).
Cooking such a mixture in a single pot	Seif 2 (broth, 60)	Without 60 → forbidden (the broth diffuses taste). Known before → permitted; otherwise → add permitted food up to 60 (no מבטל איסור).
The prohibition melts or is salted before it is known	Seif 1-2 (flour in flour; salting like cooking)	"Blended" (flour, etc.) → treated as לח בלח / 60; salted unknowingly → 60 (PT s.k. 4).

Le-ma'asse. These situations blend questions of fact — is the prohibition "worthy of being presented," of the same kind, identifiable, will one cook the mixture, was it known before — that only your Rav can decide upon seeing the case. The practical rule: reconstruct precisely what mixed into what, in what quantity, and whether one cooked or salted before knowing it, then for the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables

טבלה — nullifying dry in dry, in practice

טבלה — who says what (the siman's nossei kelim)

טבלה — contemporary currents of psika (outside the corpus, to be verified)

Sefaria links (text and nossei kelim)

Case	Measure (for us)	Note
Prohibition not ראוי להתכבד, same kind, dry	chad be-trei — the majority nullifies	One eats them one by one, not all together (מִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ)
Different kind (שלא במינו), dry	60 against the prohibition	A גזירה lest one cook them (Ran)
שלא במינו derabbanan	No 60 needed (Shach)	One does not decree a גזירה upon a גזירה (s.k. 9-10)
One threw a piece away	The two remaining ones may even be eaten together	Noda BiYhouda (PT s.k. 2)
שלא במינו, part lost, doubt over 60	Stringent	R. Akiva Eiger (PT s.k. 3): when dry the permitted does not become forbidden
One cooks the nullified mixture	60 required (the רוטב diffuses taste)	Otherwise: add up to 60 (no מבטל איסור)
Known before cooking	All permitted	Already nullified when dry, does not revert (Rosh/Tosafot, עיקר)
Salted before it was known	60 required	מליחה כבישול (PT s.k. 4)

Posek	Decisive contribution (anchored in the corpus)
Mehaber (seifim 1-2)	chad be-trei nullifies in the same kind when dry; each on its own permitted, not all three together; שלא במינו → 60; cooking the mixture → 60 (broth), otherwise add up to sixty.
Rama (הגה)	Thus לכתחילה; יש מחמירין to throw one away — a mere חומרא (seif 1); no difference דרבנן/דאורייתא (B"Y); known before cooking → all permitted, "וכן עיקר" (seif 2); in case of loss → lenient.
Shach (Siftei Kohen)	s.k. 1: ראויה להתכבד not nullified even in a thousand (simanim 101, 110); s.k. 3: קמח בקמח = לח בלח; s.k. 6: chad be-trei = majority (a large piece nullified in two small ones); s.k. 7: מִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ (Rashba); s.k. 8: שלא במינו (crumbled / several kinds); s.k. 9-10: שלא במינו derabbanan without 60; s.k. 12: two pots.
Taz (Turei Zahav)	s.k. 1: chad be-trei = majority, only a חומרא not to eat the three together; s.k. 2: שלא במינו 60 (a גזירה), and his question on seif 2 (taste perceptible in itself, ≠ 98:2); s.k. 3: no מבטל איסור — each already permitted; s.k. 4: known before = "שם היתר."
Pri Megadim (פר״מ)	The debate over the כפל (must one have double the permitted?) — מדרבנן (reported PT s.k. 1, with Minhat Yaakov and Chatam Sofer).
Pitchei Teshuva (פתחי תשובה)	s.k. 1: רוב מנין, Pri Hadash, the כפל; s.k. 2: after throwing one away → the two remaining together (Noda BiYhouda תניינא 47); s.k. 3: R. Akiva Eiger (82) stringent on שלא במינו that was lost; s.k. 4: מליחה כבישול (Hinuch Beit Yehuda, Noda BiYhouda).

👈 הלכה למעשה — the golden rule of this level

On the substance, retain the measure (majority / chad be-trei in the same kind, 60 in a different kind) and the logic of מִמַּה נַּפְשָׁךְ: this is the grid that resolves most dry-in-dry cases.
In practice, one eats them one by one (never all three together); the stringency of throwing one away is only a חומרא, and after doing so the remaining ones may be eaten together.
Cooking the nullified mixture requires 60 (the broth diffuses taste) — unless it was known before cooking; otherwise one may add permitted food up to 60, without transgressing "nullifying a prohibition."
And for every real case — prohibition worthy or not, same kind, cooked or salted before it was known — the halakha le-ma'asse goes through your Rav. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.