The founding siman of the laws of doubt: the davar chashuv (important item — the 7 things, living animals, any davar shebeminyan) never nullifies, even in a thousand (but it is rabbinic, so its doubt is lenient); kol kavua kemechtsa al mechtsa (the prohibition fixed in its place = 50/50) against kol deparish meruba parish (what separates follows the majority — the nine shops); the safek safeka (double doubt) that permits — and its limits (a doubt begufo or a prohibition bekavua does not combine).
Topic: The davar chashuv, the kavua, the majority and the safek safeka — the laws of doubt Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן ק״י
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 10 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why this siman founds all the laws of doubt
4.Kavua / parish: the table of the fixed and the separated
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.Safek safeka: when the double doubt permits, and when it does not combine
8.Modern practical cases: sealed non-kosher product, suspect batch, double doubt in the kitchen
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 10 seifim
Siman 110 is the founding siman of the laws of doubt in kashrut. Its title sets the frame: דין ספק טריפות שאירע בבשר — "the law of a doubt of tereifa that occurred in meat." But beyond tereifa, the Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) lays down here the great principles that govern every doubt in prohibitions: what does not nullify (the davar chashuv), what is fixed in its place (kavua, treated as 50/50), what separates and follows the majority (kol deparish meruba parish), and the double doubt (safek safeka) that permits — with its limits. The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) to refine the practice. Let us explore the seifim by groups.
Group A — The davar chashuv that does not nullify (seifim 1-2)
Seif 1 — Davar chashuv: the 7 things, living animals, any davar shebeminyan
An important item (davar chashuv) prohibits within its species in any quantity (bechol shehu), and these are seven things: Perekh nuts (egozei perekh), Badan pomegranates (rimonei badan), sealed barrels (chaviyot setumot), beet stalks (chalafot teradin), cabbage stumps (kilchei keruv), the Greek gourd (delaat yevanit) and a householder's loaves (kikarot shel baal habayit). Likewise, living animals (baalei chayim) are important and do not nullify. But the other things, even though it is customary to count them, nullify in their measure [60]. Gloss of the Rama:some say that any davar shebeminyan (always sold by count) does not nullify, and so is the practice. And the fact that a davar chashuv does not nullify is only rabbinic, so in its doubt we are lenient (azlinan bisfeko lekula). And anything important to the people of a place prohibits bechol shehu according to its importance in that place and time.
The central idea: as a rule, a prohibition is drowned in sixty times its volume of permitted food. But some things are too important to be deemed negligible: they "count" and never nullify, even in a thousand. The Mehaber gives seven classic examples, plus living animals; the Rama broadens it to any davar shebeminyan (sold by count). But note: this non-nullification is only rabbinic (derabanan) — so in case of doubt (is it really a davar chashuv?), one rules leniently. And importance is local and temporal: what counts here and now.
Living animals mixed with others and then slaughtered: their importance is annulled and they nullify — provided they were slaughtered inadvertently (beshogeg), and only small animals not worthy of being served (to guests) after the slaughter.
Why this nuance? The animal's importance depends only on its being alive: it is an entity that cannot be deemed negligible. Once slaughtered, it is merely a piece of meat like any other — its importance vanishes and it nullifies. But two safeguards: (a) one only "benefits" from this slaughter if it was inadvertent (otherwise one penalizes whoever slaughters deliberately to nullify); (b) only a small animal which, even slaughtered, is not a fine piece to be served — otherwise it would again be a davar chashuv (chatikha ha-reuya le-hitkabed).
Group B — The kavua and the majority: the nine shops (seifim 3-5)
Seif 3 — The nine shops: kol kavua kemechtsa / kol deparish meruba parish
Nine shops sell slaughtered [kosher] meat and one sells nevila; one took from one of them without knowing which → prohibited, for kol kavua kemechtsa al mechtsa dami (whatever is fixed in its place is treated as half-and-half). But meat found in the market or in a non-Jew's hand is permitted, since the majority of shops sell slaughtered meat: kol deparish meruba parish (what separates, separates from the majority). This is the din of the Torah; but the Sages prohibited meat that disappeared from sight (basar shenitalem min ha-ayin) even though all the slaughterers and sellers are Jews. Gloss of the Rama: see Siman 63. And kol deparish meruba parish applies only as long as it did not separate before us (lefaneinu); but if it separated before us, or we see the non-Jew take it, it is as if he took it from there by hand (= kavua).
Two opposite rules, depending on where the doubt is:
• כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה — as long as the object is fixed in its place (kavua, here: taking from a specific shop), one does not follow the majority; one treats the doubt as 50/50, and it is prohibited.
• כל דפריש מרובא פריש — but once the object has separated (parish) from the whole and is found elsewhere, one follows the majority → permitted.
The Rama's nuance: "separating" only helps if it is not before us; separated before our eyes, it is still kavua.
Seif 4 — Majority of shops + later mixture = safek safeka (Rama: prohibited)
If the majority of shops sell slaughtered meat and the minority nevila, and one took from one without knowing which, and it mixed with others without his recognizing it → nullified in the majority, by safek safeka (double doubt). Gloss of the Rama:some prohibit in such a case, for wherever the prohibition is in its place it is like half-and-half, and since the first doubt is prohibited min ha-Torah, there is no second permitting doubt here, only a mixture — which is not called safek safeka; and so is the practice.
The key dispute of the siman. For the Mehaber, there are two doubts here: (1) does the meat taken come from the kosher shop? (the majority says yes); (2) in the new mixture, is this particular piece the prohibition? → safek safeka, permitted. But the Rama rules otherwise: the first doubt was about a kavua (the fixed shop = 50/50, prohibited min ha-Torah); it cannot be "combined" with a second doubt. It is not a true double doubt, only a mixture. The practice follows the Rama: prohibited.
Seif 5 — Meat from the makulin: before / after the tereifa was found
One who took meat from the makulin (the butcher's stall), even a chatikha ha-reuya le-hitkabed (a fine piece worthy of being served), and a tereifa was found in the makulin without the tereifa pieces being identifiable and without his knowing from which he took: whatever was taken before the tereifa was found is permitted — for the doubt arose only after it had separated (parish), and the majority is kosher → permitted (kol deparish meruba parish). But taking from now on is prohibited, even a piece not worthy of being served, because not everyone is expert (and would confuse a fine piece with an ordinary one).
The moment the doubt arises changes everything. What was bought before the tereifa was discovered: at the moment of purchase, the meat had already separated from the batch, and the market's majority is kosher → one applies kol deparish meruba parish → permitted. But now that the tereifa is known, the stall has again become a kavua (50/50); and even an ordinary piece remains prohibited, for one might not distinguish a fine piece from an ordinary one ("not everyone is expert").
Group C — The separated and the dilution (seifim 6-8)
Seif 6 — Parish bemitkavein vs. mimela; the egg of the tereifa hen
Living animals and other important things mixed with permitted food, that do not nullify even in a thousand: even if one of them separated from the majority after the mixture became known, it is prohibited — and that is if it separated intentionally (bemitkavein); but if it separated by itself (mimela), it is permitted. Gloss of the Rama: the prohibition when separated intentionally is only if he separated just a part and prohibitions remain in their place (we fear he may also take from the fixed one, shema yikach min ha-kavua); but if all separated together and at the moment of removal some separated, those are permitted, except the last two which remain prohibited. And if a tereifa hen mixed with kosher ones and an egg is found among them, the egg is permitted — although the hens are important and do not nullify, we follow the majority for the egg.
Intentional or by itself. An important thing does not nullify — but when a piece separates from the mixture, can we say it "probably" comes from the permitted majority? The Mehaber distinguishes: separated by itself (mimela) → follow the majority, permitted; separated deliberately by hand (bemitkavein) → prohibited, for we fear one took precisely the prohibition that stayed fixed (gezeira shema yikach min ha-kavua). The Rama clarifies the case where everything separates together: only the last two remain prohibited. And the egg of the tereifa hen follows the simple majority: permitted.
Seif 7 — One eaten beshogeg / fallen into the sea: two by two
A thing that does not nullify because of its importance — living animals (baalei chayim), a beria (whole creature), a chatikha ha-reuya le-hitkabed, or a davar she-yesh lo matirin — that mixed with others, of which one was eaten inadvertently (beshogeg; whether he ate it himself or others ate it inadvertently) or fell by itself into the sea so as to be lost from the world → all the rest are permitted, for we attribute [saying] "the prohibition went away" (ha-issur halach lo). And only by eating the remaining ones two by two (shnayim shnayim), for mima nafshach (either way) one of them is permitted; but to eat them one by one is prohibited. Gloss of the Rama: even two by two, one person may not eat them all; and even two people should not eat them all at once.
"The prohibition went away." When one of the pieces of the non-nullifying mixture disappears (eaten inadvertently, or lost in the sea), we may now assume that it was precisely the prohibition that left — and the rest becomes permitted. But with a safeguard: to be sure not to eat the prohibition, one consumes the remaining pieces two by two (mima nafshach: out of two, at least one is permitted), never one by one. And the Rama adds that one person, or two at once, do not finish them all.
Seif 8 — Two / three mixtures: the safek safeka of dilution
A thing that does not nullify because of its importance, mixed with others, and from that mixture one fell into two others, and from the three one fell into two others → these last ones are permitted (the one from the first mixture nullifies in the majority). But if one from the first mixture fell into a thousand, all prohibited; one only said "nullifies in the majority" in order to permit its safek safeka: that if one falls from the second mixture elsewhere, it does not prohibit. Gloss of the Rama: nonetheless one person should not eat it all; and only when the mixed prohibition is a certain prohibition; but a doubtful prohibition mixed, of which one fell elsewhere → the second mixture is permitted. Some say that a davar she-yesh lo matirin (a thing that will have a way to be permitted) is not permitted by safek safeka; and it is good to be stringent except in case of need, since it has a permit anyway (mima nafshach).
Dilution creates the double doubt. An important object does not nullify — but if one dilutes it from mixture to mixture, one generates successive doubts. For a certain prohibition, three mixtures are needed before the last is permitted; for a doubtful prohibition, two mixtures suffice. The Rama's limit: a davar she-yesh lo matirin (which will become permitted anyway, e.g. after Shabbat) does not benefit from safek safeka — one rather waits for the natural permit.
Group D — The doubt begufo and the tereifa lung (seifim 9-10)
A safek tereifa mixed with others → all prohibited until there is enough permitted food to nullify the prohibition (if it is of nullifiable things), because the first doubt was in its body (begufo) → it cannot be permitted by safek safeka. Gloss of the Rama:some say the reason is that the doubt is a Torah prohibition (de-oraita) and one cannot add another doubt "that there is no prohibition here, only that it mixed" — this is not called safek safeka. But if there were two doubts about the very existence of the prohibition and they became known together, the safek safeka permits everywhere, even a Torah prohibition and begufo, even with a chezkat issur — like a bird whose wing was broken or dislocated, a doubt whether before or after the slaughter, and if before, perhaps the lung is not perforated: one permits by safek safeka, even though one could check (the lung), without concern. See Siman 53.
The limit and the exception of safek safeka. A doubt in the very body of the object (begufo) — "is this animal a tereifa?" — is not saved by the mixture doubt: the mixture does not add a true second doubt, only a "where is it?". By contrast, when there are two genuine doubts about the existence of the prohibition, known together, the double doubt permits everywhere — even a Torah prohibition, even begufo, and even against a chezkat issur (presumption of prohibition). This is the heart of the yesod of safek safeka.
A tereifa lung found among kosher lungs, the inspector (ha-bodek) having said that he recognized that sirkha (adhesion), and the tereifa lung having mixed by mistake among the kosher ones, and there was no confusion (irbuvya) among the lambs → the lambs are permitted.
The lung does not drag the bodies along. As long as the lambs themselves were not mixed (each remains identifiable), the fact that the lungs were confused does not prohibit the bodies: we know that all the lambs but one are kosher, and the doubt falls only on a detached organ. Since the inspector recognizes the sirkha and there was no irbuvya among the animals, the lambs remain permitted.
2. Context — where this siman fits
After the long simanim on the tereifot (the defects that render an animal prohibited, up to siman 109), the Mehaber deals here with doubt: what to do when one no longer knows whether a piece is prohibited, or whether it mixed with permitted food? The title speaks of ספק טריפות, but siman 110 is in fact the seat of the great laws of doubt in kashrut — those found throughout Yoreh De'ah: what does not nullify, the role of the majority, the status of the fixed, and the mechanism of the double doubt.
The major questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
What does not nullify?
Seifim 1-2
Davar chashuv (7 things, living animals, davar shebeminyan); but rabbinic → sfeko lekula
The fixed vs. the majority
Seif 3
Kavua = 50/50; separated (parish) → follow the majority
Bemitkavein → prohibited; mimela / eaten / fallen → permitted; two or three mixtures
The doubt begufo and the lung
Seifim 9-10
Begufo does not combine; two genuine doubts together → permitted
The transversal idea: everything is a matter of doubt — where it falls and how many doubts there are. A single doubt on a fixed item (kavua) or on the body (begufo) is not enough. But a majority, an object separated from its place, or two independent doubts known together, tip toward the permitted — except for what is too important to nullify.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 110, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing what nullifies, what becomes fixed, and how a permitting doubt is built.
דבר חשוב / דבר שבמנין — The important item: a thing too important to be deemed negligible (the 7 things; the baalei chayim; per the Rama, any davar shebeminyan sold by count) never nullifies, even in a thousand. But it is rabbinic → in case of doubt, sfeko lekula. Importance is local and temporal.
כל קבוע כמחצה על מחצה — The fixed = half-and-half: a prohibition fixed in its place (kavua, e.g. a specific shop) is not nullified by the majority; one treats it as 50/50 (derived from "ve-arav lo ve-kam," Bava Kama 44).
כל דפריש מרובא פריש — The separated follows the majority: once an object has separated (parish) from the whole — and not before our eyes — one follows the majority → permitted. But parish lefaneinu (before us) = still kavua. (Basar shenitalem min ha-ayin is a rabbinic stringency, siman 63.)
ספק ספיקא — The double doubt: two independent doubts permit, even a Torah prohibition. Limits: it does not combine when the 1st doubt is begufo (in the body) or bekavua (Torah at the fixed place) — a mere "mixture doubt" is not a second doubt.
מקולין — The butcher's stall: taken before the tereifa was found = permitted (kol deparish); from now on = prohibited, for the stall has again become kavua and "not everyone is expert."
פירש במתכוין / ממילא — Separated deliberately / by itself: an important piece separated intentionally from a known mixture → prohibited (gezeira shema yikach min ha-kavua); separated by itself → follow the majority, permitted. The last two remain prohibited.
The red thread: a doubt is only "resolved" by the majority or by safek safeka if it has left its fixed place and the doubts are genuine and independent. As long as the prohibition is kavua or the doubt is begufo, the doubt stays closed (prohibited). And what is chashuv does not nullify at all — but this severity, being rabbinic, yields to doubt.
4. Kavua / parish — the table of the fixed and the separated
The heart of seifim 3-6 fits in a table. One crosses is the object in its place (kavua) or separated (parish)? with how / when did it separate?, and looks at whether one follows the majority.
Situation
Status
Result
Taken from a specific shop (kavua)
Kemechtsa al mechtsa
🔴 50/50 → prohibited (one does not follow the majority)
Found in the market / separated, not lefaneinu
Kol deparish meruba parish
🟢 Follow the majority → permitted
Separated before us (lefaneinu)
Like kavua
🔴 Prohibited (still 50/50)
Separated by itself (mimela)
Follow the majority
🟢 Permitted (seif 6)
Separated intentionally (bemitkavein)
Shema yikach min ha-kavua
🔴 Prohibited (unless all separated; the last 2 prohibited)
The logic in one sentence: as long as the prohibition is fixed in its place, one counts it as half-and-half (prohibited). As soon as it separates by itself and is found elsewhere, one follows the majority (permitted). The deliberate act does not help, for one fears taking precisely the prohibition that stayed in place.
The point of the makulin (seif 5): the same stall is kavua as long as the tereifa is "present" — but what had left it before it was discovered had already separated (parish) toward the kosher majority of the market → permitted retroactively.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Choul'han Aroukh is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the reference nossei kelim of Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berura here, which comments only 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. On our siman, his long development on the safek safeka (s.k. 52-66) is foundational.
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.
The Taz recalls that the rule "any davar shebeminyan does not nullify" rests on a dispute of R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish (and the classic example of the egg). And he concludes practically: since this non-nullification is only rabbinic, one may be lenient in case of loss (be-hefsed). One already sees the rabbinic character of the davar chashuv, which opens the door to the sfeko lekula of seif 1.
The Shach lays out the rules of safek safeka: one needs one body and one matter (guf echad me-inyan echad), two balanced doubts (shekulim) and reversible (mithapech); and above all, that the two doubts bear on the very existence of the prohibition and be known together. This is exactly the condition that distinguishes seif 4 (1st doubt bekavua → no s.s.) from seif 9 (two genuine doubts together → s.s. even bechezkat issur).
One sees the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they set the conditions (the rabbinic character of the davar chashuv, the rules of the s.s.) that decide, in each case of the siman, whether the doubt permits or not. This is exactly what one deepens at the Lamdan level.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds glosses to the Mehaber's text that reflect the practice and refine its application. Here are his most striking interventions in our siman.
On seif 1 — any davar shebeminyan does not nullify, but rabbinic
Gloss of the Rama: וי״א דכל דבר שבמנין אינו בטל וכן נהגו… ואזלינן בספיקו לקולא — "some say that any davar shebeminyan does not nullify, and so is the practice… and in its doubt we are lenient". The Rama broadens the Mehaber's closed list to anything sold by count, but at once recalls that it is rabbinic: in case of doubt one is lenient (sfeko lekula), and importance depends on place and time.
On seif 3 — kol deparish applies only if not lefaneinu
Gloss of the Rama: וכל דפריש מרובא פריש דוקא כשלא פירש לפנינו… הוי קבוע — "kol deparish meruba parish only as long as it did not separate before us… [otherwise] it is kavua". The Rama refers to siman 63 and rules: if one sees the object separate (or the non-Jew take it), one no longer follows the majority — it is as if he took it by hand from the fixed place.
On seif 4 — no safek safeka on a 1st doubt bekavua (the practice)
Gloss of the Rama: וי״א לאסור… דכל מקום שהאיסור קבוע הוי כמחצה על מחצה… ולא מקרי ספק ספיקא, וכן נהגו — "some prohibit… for wherever the prohibition is fixed it is like half-and-half… and this is not called safek safeka; and so is the practice". This is the most important practical decision of the siman: a first doubt bekavua (prohibited min ha-Torah) does not combine with a second to form a true double doubt.
On seifim 6-9 — mimela, the egg, two by two, the true s.s.
The Rama further clarifies: separated by itself and the egg of the tereifa hen follow the majority (seif 6); two by two, one person does not eat it all (seifim 7-8); a davar she-yesh lo matirin is not permitted by s.s. (seif 8); and above all, two genuine doubts known together permit even a Torah prohibition, begufo, and even bechezkat issur — like the bird with a dislocated wing (seif 9).
The Rama carefully distinguishes the baseline law (the Mehaber, who permits by s.s. in seif 4) from the received, stricter practice (no s.s. on a 1st doubt bekavua) — while clearly stating when the double doubt truly permits (two doubts on the body of the prohibition, known together).
7. Safek safeka — when the double doubt permits
Seifim 4 and 9 — the conceptual heart of the siman — deserve a pause. When exactly do two doubts "combine" to permit?
Everything rests on the nature of the two doubts. Two paths oppose each other:
False s.s. (seif 4, seif 9): the 1st doubt is bekavua (the shop = 50/50) or begufo (is the animal a tereifa?). The mixture adds only a "where is it?" — it is not a second doubt on the existence of the prohibition. Prohibited.
True s.s. (seif 9, end): two distinct doubts on the very existence of the prohibition (before/after the slaughter, then lung perforated or not), known together. Permitted — even de-oraita, begufo, and bechezkat issur.
Case
Valid double doubt?
Result
Majority of shops + mixture (seif 4)
🔴 No (1st doubt bekavua)
Prohibited (practice / Rama)
Safek tereifa mixed (seif 9, start)
🔴 No (1st doubt begufo)
Prohibited (unless nullifiable)
Two doubts on the existence, together (seif 9)
🟢 Yes
Permitted, even de-oraita / begufo / bechezkat issur
Dilution: certain prohibition → 3 mixtures (seif 8)
🟢 Yes (through dilution)
The last mixture permitted
Davar she-yesh lo matirin
🟡 No (Rama: wait for the permit)
One prefers to be stringent
The Shach's rule (s.k. 63) sums it all up: one needs one body, one matter, two balanced doubts known together, bearing on the existence of the prohibition. A "location" doubt in a mixture, grafted onto an already certain prohibition (bekavua, begufo), does not make a true safek safeka.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens and our shopping today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — A non-kosher product under sealed packaging among identical ones
A non-kosher unit (e.g. a can or a tray) slipped in among identical products under sealed packaging, without one knowing which. Sealed packaging is the modern analogue of the chavit setuma (sealed barrel) of seif 1 — a davar chashuv / davar shebeminyan that does not nullify by the majority, even in a large number. But since this severity is rabbinic, if one even doubts that it is a true davar chashuv, one applies sfeko lekula. For the halacha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Meat from a batch where a piece turned out to be non-kosher
One learns that a batch of meat, at a merchant's, contained a non-kosher piece (seifim 3, 5). The decisive distinction is the timing: what was bought before the problem became known had already separated from the batch, and the market's majority is kosher → kol deparish meruba parish, rather permitted. But buying now from this stall that has again become kavua is prohibited, for it is treated as 50/50. For the halacha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — A double doubt (safek safeka) in the kitchen
A piece one doubts is prohibited falls into a dish, without knowing into which portion (seifim 4, 9). Is there a true safek safeka? It all depends: if the two doubts bear on the very existence of the prohibition (was it really prohibited? and even if so, is it in this portion?), known together, one may be lenient. But if the first doubt was already resolved toward the prohibition bekavua or begufo, the mere mixture does not add a valid second doubt. For the halacha lema'aseh, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the three cases: before concluding, ask yourself three questions — is it a davar chashuv that does not nullify? is the prohibition fixed (kavua) or separated (parish)? do I have two genuine doubts or only one? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details.
9. Summary of Siman 110
The essence of Siman 110 in a few sentences:
The davar chashuv (7 things, living animals, davar shebeminyan) never nullifies; but it is rabbinic → sfeko lekula (seif 1).
Animals slaughtered beshogeg (small, not reuya le-hitkabed) nullify: importance existed only while alive (seif 2).
Kol kavua kemechtsa al mechtsa (the fixed = 50/50) against kol deparish meruba parish (the separated follows the majority) — the nine shops (seif 3).
Majority + mixture: the Mehaber permits by safek safeka; but the practice (Rama) prohibits (1st doubt bekavua) (seif 4).
At the makulin: taken before the tereifa → permitted (kol deparish); from now on → prohibited (seif 5).
Parish bemitkavein → prohibited; mimela → permitted; the last two prohibited; the egg follows the majority (seif 6).
One eaten beshogeg / fallen into the sea → the rest permitted ("the prohibition went away"), two by two (seif 7).
Dilution creates an s.s.: certain prohibition → three mixtures; doubtful prohibition → two; davar she-yesh lo matirin not permitted by s.s. (seif 8).
A doubt begufo is not saved by the mixture; but two genuine doubts together permit, even bechezkat issur (seif 9).
A tereifa lung among kosher ones, with no confusion of the lambs → the lambs are permitted (seif 10).
Memory table
Situation
Status
Davar chashuv / davar shebeminyan
🔴 Does not nullify (but rabbinic → sfeko lekula)
Animal slaughtered beshogeg (small)
🟢 Nullifies
Prohibition kavua (specific shop)
🔴 50/50 → prohibited
Separated (parish) not lefaneinu / mimela
🟢 Follow the majority → permitted
Majority + mixture (1st doubt bekavua)
🔴 Prohibited (practice / Rama)
Two genuine doubts known together
🟢 Permitted, even de-oraita / begufo / bechezkat issur
Davar she-yesh lo matirin
🟡 No s.s. (wait for the permit)
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What are the 7 things of seif 1? Why does a davar chashuv not nullify, and why is its doubt lenient?
Why do slaughtered animals nullify (seif 2)? Which two conditions?
Explain kol kavua kemechtsa al mechtsa and kol deparish meruba parish (seif 3). What does lefaneinu change?
In seif 4, why does the Mehaber permit by safek safeka and the Rama prohibit?
At the makulin (seif 5), why is "before" permitted and "now" prohibited?
Distinguish parish bemitkavein from mimela (seif 6). Why is the egg permitted?
What does "the prohibition went away" mean (seif 7)? Why eat two by two?
How many mixtures are needed for a certain prohibition? for a doubtful one (seif 8)?
Why does a doubt begufo not combine (seif 9)? When does the s.s. permit even bechezkat issur?
What does the Taz (s.k. 1) say about the davar shebeminyan and the egg? And the Shach (s.k. 63) on the rules of the s.s.?
To go further
If you wish to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul, the yesod of davar shebeminyan (R. Yochanan / Resh Lakish), the great analysis of safek safeka (two vs. three mixtures, the doubt be-guf echad, chezkat issur), anchored in the sugyot
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (kavua / parish, the valid s.s. or not), the golden rules and quick memorization of the 10 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halacha lema'aseh: the practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pitchei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on the concrete cases
The sources of this level can be consulted on Sefaria: