Siman 111 — Attribution (תולין / שאני אומר) and Mixtures That Combine in Doubt (הכל נכנס בספק)
Attributing the forbidden to the forbidden side, and combining two pots to reach sixty — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קי״א
דִּין תּוֹלִין לְהָקֵל וְהַכֹּל נִכְנָס בְּסָפֵק
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
The direct continuation of Siman 110: when a piece of forbidden food and a piece of permitted food fall into two pots (one permitted, one forbidden), we attribute (תולין / שאני אומר) the forbidden to the forbidden side → permitted — but only for a rabbinic (דרבנן) prohibition (or a Toraitic prohibition nullified by the majority), and as long as the forbidden is not the majority; and the rule of הכל נכנס בספק: two pots that "enter into the doubt" combine to reach sixty — even when far apart (one in the cellar, one in the attic), provided they belong to one and the same person.
Topic: Attribution (תולין / שאני אומר) and the combining of two pots (הכל נכנס בספק) Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קי״א
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 7 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why this siman directly continues Siman 110 (the rules of doubt)
4.Tolin / shani omer: the table of conditions (derabbanan, majority, sixty)
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.Hakol nichnas be-safek: what the combining really means
8.Modern practical cases: forbidden ingredient in one of two pots, combining two dishes
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 7 seifim
Siman 111 directly continues Siman 110 (the rules of doubt: תולין, ספק ספיקא, the piece that "went away"). The Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) deals here with a very precise situation: a piece of forbidden food and a piece of permitted food fall into pots (one permitted, one forbidden), or one piece into one of two pots — without our knowing exactly where. Everything depends on the nature of the prohibition (rabbinic דרבנן or Toraitic דאורייתא), the measure (is the forbidden the majority? is there a majority of permitted, or sixty?), and whether pots combine or not. Let us explore the seifim by groups.
Group A — We attribute leniently: tolin and the condition of non-majority (seifim 1-2)
Seif 1 — Tolin (we attribute) for a rabbinic prohibition: the three scenarios
Two pots, one permitted and one forbidden, and before him two pieces, one permitted and one forbidden: if the piece is a rabbinic prohibition (דרבנן) — for example the fat of the gid (שומנו של גיד) — and they fell into one another → they are permitted, because we attribute (תולין) by saying: the forbidden fell into the forbidden and the permitted into the permitted — even if the permitted in the pot is not greater than the piece [that fell]. Likewise, if there were here only a single pot of slaughtered meat (שחוטה) and one of these two pieces fell into it without our knowing which → we attribute that it was the permitted one that fell, even if the permitted is not greater than the forbidden. Or if there were only a single piece of a rabbinic prohibition and two pots, one permitted and one forbidden, without our knowing into which it fell → here too we attribute leniently.
The central idea: when a doubt "settles" between forbidden and permitted, we attribute (תולין) toward the lenient side — we assume the forbidden fell where it makes no difference (into the already-forbidden pot), and that it was the permitted that fell into the permitted pot. Three scenarios are listed: (a) 2 pots + 2 pieces; (b) 1 permitted pot + 2 pieces; (c) 1 piece + 2 pots. All are lenient — provided the prohibition is rabbinic (דרבנן), and even without a majority of permitted. The basis: ספק דרבנן לקולא (a rabbinic doubt leans toward leniency) together with the principle שאני אומר ("I say").
Seif 2 — Only if the forbidden is not the majority
All this [attributing leniently], even though the permitted is not greater than the forbidden, applies only as long as the forbidden too is not greater than the permitted; but if the forbidden is greater than the permitted, we do not attribute leniently.
The condition of parity: the leniency of tolin does not require that the permitted prevail — but it does require that the forbidden not prevail either. As long as the two are roughly equal (or the permitted is the majority), we attribute. But if the mass of the forbidden exceeds that of the permitted, the doubt leans "the wrong way" and we are no longer lenient — for a rabbinic prohibition.
Group B — When the prohibition is Toraitic: a majority of permitted is needed (seifim 3-4)
Seif 3 — Toraitic prohibition: a majority of permitted is needed
If the prohibition was Toraitic (של תורה), we do not attribute leniently to say it fell into the forbidden, until the permitted is greater than the forbidden enough to nullify it by Torah law (מן התורה) [through the majority].
The derabbanan / deoraita boundary: all of seif 1 rested on the leniency of a rabbinic doubt. For a Toraitic prohibition, the simple tolin no longer suffices: a genuine majority of permitted (רוב) is required, enough to nullify the prohibition by Torah law. The principle "שאני אומר — it did not fall here" is not enough on its own when a Toraitic prohibition is at stake.
Seif 4 — When the permitted is the majority: min bemino (majority) / eino mino (sixty)
If the permitted was greater than the forbidden enough to nullify it by Torah law, we attribute leniently. How so? Two pots, one of slaughtered meat (שחוטה) and one of nevelah (נבילה), and a piece of nevelah fell into one of them without our knowing which: if the permitted in the permitted pot is enough to nullify the piece of nevelah → we attribute leniently, because by Torah law, min bemino (like within like) is nullified in a majority (בטל ברוב) — it is only the Sages who required sixty. But if the two pots were of one species and the prohibition of another species (אינו מינו), we do not attribute leniently until the permitted is sixty times the forbidden.
מין במינו / אינו מינו — "like within like" / "not its like": by Torah law, a prohibition mixed with permitted food of the same species (min bemino) is nullified in a mere majority (רוב); for another species (eino mino), where the taste is distinguishable, sixty is required (the 60 are a rabbinic requirement, cf. Siman 98).
Group C — Two permitted pots and successive falls (seifim 5-6)
Seif 5 — Two permitted pots + two pieces: both are forbidden
If there were here two permitted pots and before them two pieces, one permitted and one forbidden, and one fell into this one and the other into that one → both are forbidden, even for a rabbinic prohibition, if neither of them has enough to nullify the prohibition. But if one of them has enough to nullify the prohibition → both are permitted.
Why are both forbidden here? Here, both pots are permitted. Attributing the forbidden to one would amount to permitting the other — but why this one rather than that one? מאי חזית ("what did you see" to prefer one?). Lacking a reason to decide, the doubt applies to both: each may be the one that received the forbidden. We therefore cannot be lenient on either — unless one of them has enough to nullify the prohibition (sixty, or the majority as the case may be): then the problem disappears and both are permitted.
Seif 6 — Successive falls: the second where the first fell
If there were two permitted pots and a forbidden item fell into one of them and it is known into which, then a forbidden item fell again into one of them without it being known into which → I say: the second one fell into the same one into which the first fell [so the other pot remains permitted]. But if a forbidden item fell into one of them without it being known into which, then a forbidden item fell into one of them and it is known into which → both are forbidden. Gloss of the Rama: and only if they do not have sixty to nullify the forbidden item that fell; but if they had sixty to nullify it, it is as if no prohibition fell into them at all (B"Y in the name of the Rashba).
The order of the falls changes everything: if the first forbidden item fell into a known pot, and the second fell into an unknown pot, we say: "the second fell where the first already fell" — the first pot is forbidden in any case, and the other remains permitted. But if the order is reversed (first unknown, then known), the doubt can no longer be "tied down," and both are forbidden. And the Rama reminds us: all this when neither has sixty; otherwise, the forbidden is nullified and it is as if it never fell.
Group D — Hakol nichnas be-safek: the pots combine (seif 7)
Seif 7 — Hakol nichnas be-safek (the combining): house and attic, one and the same person
If there were two permitted pots and a forbidden item fell into one of them without our knowing which, and there is in neither enough to nullify the prohibition but in the two together there is → they combine (מצטרפות) to nullify it. And not only that, but even one in the house and one in the attic (אחת בבית ואחת בעלייה) combine; and so it is up to a hundred. This [holds] when both belong to one and the same person, because everything that belongs to one person is destined to be mixed (עתיד להתערב); but if they belong to two people, they do not combine. Gloss of the Rama: some are strict (יש מחמירין) — even for a single person one is not lenient; but in a case of loss (הפסד) one permits for a single person. However, he may eat them only after he has mixed them together, for then the prohibition is already nullified.
הכל נכנס בספק — "everything enters into the doubt": since we do not know into which of the two pots the forbidden item fell, the doubt "enters" both. Now, what belongs to one and the same person is "destined to be mixed" (עתיד להתערב): the halakha therefore treats them as already combined, and their volumes add up to reach sixty — even if they are physically far apart (house / attic).
The logic of the tserouf (combining): normally, to nullify a prohibition one needs sixty in the same vessel. Here, exceptionally, two separate pots add up — because the doubt envelops both, and they are destined to be mixed (one and the same person). The limit: two owners → no combining. And the Rama adds (per the strict practice) that one eats only after they have actually been mixed, and only in a case of loss.
2. Context — where this siman fits
Siman 110 laid down the great rules of doubt in kashrut: when do we attribute (תולין), what is a ספק ספיקא, what happens when the doubtful piece has been "carried away"? Siman 111 directly continues this discussion in a very concrete case: a forbidden and a permitted item that "cross paths" between pots, without our knowing exactly where the forbidden landed. The question is no longer "how much is sixty?" but "to which side do we attribute the doubt?", "under what condition (prohibition derabbanan or deoraita, the majority or not)?", and "do two pots combine to nullify?".
The great questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
We attribute (תולין) toward the forbidden side
Seif 1
Yes for a derabbanan prohibition (the 3 scenarios), even without a majority
The condition of non-majority of the forbidden
Seif 2
We attribute as long as the forbidden is not greater
Toraitic prohibition
Seifim 3-4
A majority of permitted is needed; min bemino → majority, eino mino → 60
Two permitted pots / successive falls
Seifim 5-6
2 permitted pots → both forbidden; the 2nd falls where the 1st did
The combining (הכל נכנס בספק)
Seif 7
Two pots of one and the same person combine for the 60
The cross-cutting idea: everything is a matter of attribution and combining. To which side can the doubt be "filed" (תולין)? That depends on the nature of the prohibition (derabbanan/deoraita) and its mass (the majority or not). And when we cannot attribute, can we at least add up the volumes (tserouf) to reach sixty?
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 111, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing how a doubt is attributed and how mixtures combine.
תולין — "we attribute / we suspend": faced with a doubt, we "file" reality toward the lenient side — we assume the forbidden fell where it makes no difference (into the forbidden), and that the permitted fell into the permitted (seif 1).
שאני אומר — "I say": the formula of the reasoning — "I say that it was the permitted that fell here, and the forbidden over there." Talmudic source: Yevamot 82 (the two baskets of chullin and terumah: "terumah into terumah"). It is a lighter doubt than an ordinary safek, because there is a reason to lean toward leniency.
ספק דרבנן לקולא — "a rabbinic doubt leans toward leniency": this is the basis of seif 1. We attribute leniently only for a rabbinic (דרבנן) prohibition, such as shumno shel gid (the fat of the sciatic nerve). For a Toraitic prohibition, a genuine majority is needed (seif 3).
מין במינו — "like within like": by Torah law, a prohibition mixed with permitted food of the same species is nullified in a mere majority (רוב); for another species (אינו מינו), sixty is needed (the 60 are a rabbinic requirement — seif 4).
מאי חזית — "what did you see?": when both pots are permitted (seif 5), we cannot attribute the forbidden to one rather than the other — there is no reason to prefer one. The doubt therefore applies to both, which are both forbidden.
צירוף / הכל נכנס בספק — "combining" / "everything enters into the doubt": two separate pots, only one of which (perhaps) received the forbidden, add up to reach sixty — provided they belong to one and the same person, hence "destined to be mixed" (seif 7).
The unifying thread: everything rests on how uncertainty is handled. Either we can attribute (תולין) the doubt toward the lenient side — and that depends on the nature and the mass of the prohibition; or we cannot (two permitted pots, מאי חזית), but then we can sometimes combine (tserouf) the volumes to nullify.
4. Tolin / shani omer — the table of conditions
Seifim 1 through 4 boil down to a table. We cross the nature of the prohibition with the mass of permitted, and we look at whether we attribute (תולין) leniently.
Situation
Condition
Result
Prohibition derabbanan (e.g. shumno shel gid), forbidden not the majority
Permitted need not be the majority
🟢 We attribute (תולין) → permitted (seif 1)
Prohibition derabbanan, but the forbidden is the majority
The forbidden prevails
🔴 We do not attribute (seif 2)
Prohibition deoraita, without a majority of permitted
—
🔴 We do not attribute (seif 3)
Prohibition deoraita, min bemino
Permitted = majority (רוב)
🟢 We attribute (nullified in the majority by Torah law, seif 4)
Prohibition deoraita, eino mino
Permitted = sixty
🟢 We attribute (seif 4)
The logic in one sentence: for a rabbinic prohibition, the simple tolin suffices (and even without a majority), as long as the forbidden is not the greater; for a Toraitic prohibition, genuine nullification is required — the majority (רוב) if min bemino, sixty if eino mino.
The fine point (seif 4): even for a deoraita prohibition, we are lenient as soon as there is a majority in min bemino — for by Torah law, like is already nullified in the majority (רוב). The sixty is only a rabbinic requirement, which therefore does not block this tolin when it concerns the same species.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Arukh is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the reference nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berurah here, which only comments on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — an 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) — an 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 — Shani omer: lighter than an ordinary deoraita doubt
The Taz explains the mainspring of the leniency: it is the principle of shani omer ("I say"), drawn from Yevamot 82 (the affair of the two baskets of chullin and terumah). And the Taz makes a subtle point: even a doubt touching a Toraitic prohibition, but whose measure is only a rabbinic detail (שיעור דרבנן), is permitted by the force of shani omer — it is a lighter doubt than an ordinary deoraita safek (such as that of Siman 66), because there is a genuine reason to lean toward the lenient side.
The Shach stresses the basis of seif 1: since the prohibition is rabbinic (דרבנן), its doubt leans toward leniency (ספקו להקל) — which is why we attribute (תולין) that the forbidden fell into the forbidden. But for a Toraitic prohibition, we do not attribute, until the permitted prevails over it. The Shach (s.k. 2) adds that even a prohibition with a Toraitic root but treated as rabbinic (e.g. a non-Jew's cheese) follows this leniency, in the name of the Rashba.
We see the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they name the mechanism (shani omer, sfek derabbanan lekula) and decide its limits (how far the leniency extends, and where it stops: forbidden in the majority, deoraita). This is exactly what is deepened at the Lamdan level, with the קל וחומר of the bavot and the great machloket Ramban / Rashba on the two people.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect Ashkenazi practice and specify the application. Here are his most notable interventions in our siman.
On seif 6 — sixty nullifies, as if nothing fell
Gloss of the Rama: ודוקא שאין בהן ששים לבטל האיסור שנפל; אבל אם היה בהן ששים לבטלו — הרי הוא כאילו לא נפל בהן שום איסור — "and only if they do not have sixty to nullify the forbidden item that fell; but if they had sixty to nullify it, it is as if no prohibition fell into them at all" (B"Y in the name of the Rashba). The Rama thus reminds us that, even before reasoning about successive falls, one must check whether there is already enough to nullify: if so, the problem is solved in advance.
On seif 7 — yesh machmirin and the case of loss
Gloss of the Rama: ויש מחמירין דאפילו בשל אדם אחד אין להקל; ובמקום הפסד מתירין בשל אדם אחד, מיהו לא יאכלם אלא לאחר שערבן יחד — "some are strict: even for a single person one is not lenient; but in a case of loss, one permits for a single person — however he may eat them only after he has mixed them together". The Rama thus tempers the Mehaber's tserouf: per the strict practice, one resorts to it only in a case of loss (הפסד), and only after having actually mixed the two pots — for then the prohibition is already nullified.
The Rama carefully distinguishes the baseline law (the Mehaber, more lenient on the tserouf) from the more cautious Ashkenazi practice (yesh machmirin: combining only in a case of loss, and after actual mixing) — while confirming the great principle: sixty nullifies the prohibition as if it never fell (seif 6).
7. Hakol nichnas be-safek — what the combining really means
Seif 7 — the conceptual summit of the siman — deserves a pause. What exactly does "two pots combine" mean when only one of them (perhaps) received the prohibition?
Everything rests on the idea that the doubt "enters" both pots. Since we do not know which received the prohibition, each is potentially concerned — and the halakha treats them as a single whole, as long as they belong to one and the same person. Two consequences:
One and the same person: the two are "destined to be mixed" (עתיד להתערב) → we add up the volumes to reach sixty, even if they are far apart (house / attic), even up to a hundred.
Two people: nothing destines them to be mixed → no combining; each pot remains alone with its doubt.
Case
Combine?
Result
A single pot has 60 against the forbidden
—
🟢 Nullified in advance (seif 6, Rama)
Two pots, one and the same person, 60 in the two together
🟢 Yes (destined to be mixed)
🟢 Combine → nullified (seif 7)
House / attic, one and the same person
🟢 Yes (even far apart)
🟢 Combine (up to a hundred)
Two different people
🔴 No
🔴 Do not combine
One person, strict practice (Rama)
🟡 Only in a case of loss
🟡 After actually mixing them
And seif 7 adds the final touch (Rama): per the strict practice, one eats only after having actually mixed the two pots, and only in a case of loss (הפסד) — for the actual mixing concretely accomplishes the nullification that the halakha had anticipated.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — A forbidden ingredient (derabbanan) that fell into one of two pots
You have two pots on the stove, and an ingredient that falls under a rabbinic prohibition (for example a product whose prohibition is only derabbanan) falls into one of the two without our knowing which (seif 1, scenario c). If the prohibition is indeed derabbanan and not the majority, we attribute (תולין) leniently. But if both pots are permitted and two pieces (one forbidden, one permitted) fell each into one (seif 5), then both are forbidden — unless one has enough to nullify. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Combining two dishes of one and the same person to reach 60
A forbidden item fell into one of your two pots (you do not know which), and no single one has sixty times the volume of the forbidden — but the two together, yes (seif 7). Since both pots belong to one and the same person (you), they combine (tserouf) to reach sixty — even if one is in the kitchen and the other in another room. Note: if the two pots belong to two different people, they do not combine; and per the Rama's strict practice, one eats only in a case of loss and after having mixed them. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — Two successive falls into two pots
A forbidden item falls first into an identified pot, then a second forbidden item falls into one of the two without our knowing which (seif 6). We then say: "the second fell where the first already fell" → the second pot remains permitted. But if the order is reversed (first unknown, then known), both are forbidden. And in all cases, if there is sixty to nullify the forbidden item that fell, it is as if it never fell (Rama). For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
The common thread of the three cases: before concluding, ask yourself three questions — is the prohibition derabbanan or deoraita, and is it the majority? can I attribute (תולין) the doubt toward the lenient side? if not, can I combine (tserouf) two pots of one and the same person to reach sixty? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details.
9. Summary of Siman 111
The essence of Siman 111 in a few sentences:
When a forbidden and a permitted item "cross paths" between pots, we attribute (תולין) the forbidden to the forbidden side — for a rabbinic (דרבנן) prohibition (the 3 scenarios), even without a majority (seif 1).
We attribute only as long as the forbidden is not greater than the permitted (seif 2).
For a Toraitic prohibition, a majority of permitted that nullifies by Torah law is required (seif 3).
With a majority: min bemino → the majority (רוב) suffices; eino mino → sixty is needed (seif 4).
Two permitted pots + 2 pieces → both forbidden (מאי חזית), unless one nullifies (seif 5).
Successive falls: the second falls where the first (known first); unknown-then-known → both forbidden; 60 → as if nothing (seif 6).
Hakol nichnas be-safek: two pots of one and the same person combine for the sixty, even far apart (house/attic), up to a hundred; two people → no (seif 7).
Memory table
Situation
Rule
Prohibition derabbanan, not the majority
🟢 We attribute (תולין) → permitted
Prohibition derabbanan, but the majority
🔴 We do not attribute
Prohibition deoraita, min bemino, majority
🟢 We attribute (nullified in the majority)
Prohibition deoraita, eino mino
🟡 Sixty is needed
Two permitted pots + 2 pieces
🔴 Both forbidden (מאי חזית)
Successive falls (known then unknown)
🟢 The second falls where the first did
Two pots, one person, 60 together
🟢 They combine (הכל נכנס בספק)
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What is תולין? What are the three scenarios of seif 1, and why do they require a rabbinic (דרבנן) prohibition?
What condition does seif 2 set? Can we attribute if the forbidden is the majority?
For a Toraitic prohibition, what is required (seif 3)? Why does the simple tolin no longer suffice?
Distinguish מין במינו from אינו מינו (seif 4). When does the majority suffice, when is sixty needed?
Why, with two permitted pots (seif 5), are both forbidden? What is מאי חזית?
Explain the rule of successive falls (seif 6). What does the order change (known / unknown)? And if there is sixty?
What is הכל נכנס בספק (seif 7)? Why do two pots of one and the same person combine, even far apart?
Why do two different people not combine their pots?
What does the Taz (s.k. 1) say about shani omer and the deoraita doubt of rabbinic measure? And the Shach (s.k. 1) about sfek derabbanan lekula?
What does the Rama (seif 7) decide about the tserouf in a case of loss, and about mixing first?
To go further
If you want to delve deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpoul, the kal vachomer of the bavot and shani omer (Yevamot 82), the great machloket Ramban / Rashba on the two people and the tserouf, the chatikha naasit nevila that does not block the combining
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (tolin per derabbanan/deoraita, min bemino / 60), the golden rules and quick memorization of the 7 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'asse: the practical psika (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pithei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on the concrete cases
The sources of this level can be consulted on Sefaria: