Siman קכ״ב — Notén taam lifgam (נותן טעם לפגם): a taste that spoils, in vessels
When an absorbed taste no longer improves anything — to discover and understand
יורה דעה · סימן קכ״ב
דין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים
🌱 Introductory level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 122: the 12 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, Hebrew text and fluent English translation. A forbidden taste that spoils the food instead of improving it does not forbid it. The siman applies that principle to vessels: once twenty-four hours have passed, what a pot has absorbed is deemed spoiled. What remains to be settled is what the Sages nevertheless forbade, on what conditions the taste is truly spoiled, and what we presume about a vessel whose history we do not know.
Subject: A taste that spoils, in vessels — בת יומא, the decree, דברים חריפים, איסור מועט, presumptions Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ב
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Plan of study
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 12 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: where the principle נותן טעם לפגם comes from
3.Key concepts: בת יומא, מעת לעת, גזירה, דברים חריפים, ספק ספיקא…
4.The summary table: lechatchila, bedieved, and what remains forbidden
5.The Taz and the Shach: two key entries
6.The Rama's gloss (הגה): four interventions
7.Modern practical cases: the forgotten pot, the caterer, the workshop, second-hand ware
8.Synthesis and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 12 seifim
Siman 122 opens with a strikingly brief rule — three words — and draws twelve seifim out of it. The principle: a forbidden taste that spoils the food instead of improving it does not forbid it. Applied to vessels, it changes everything: what a pot has absorbed degrades over time, and after twenty-four hours (מעת לעת) it is deemed spoiled. The siman then reads in three movements: the principle and its measure of time (seifim 1-4); the situations where the question does not even arise — too little prohibition, or a presumption that settles matters in advance (seifim 5-8); and vessels left with, sent to, or bought from a non-Jew (seifim 9-12). The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) intervenes in four seifim, almost always to mark off lechatchila from bedieved.
Group A — The principle and the twenty-four-hour count (seifim 1-4)
Seif 1 — The principle, in three words
נותן טעם לפגם מותר:
That which gives a spoiled taste is permitted.
A seif of three words — and the whole siman hangs on it. The general rule of mixtures is that a forbidden taste passing into permitted food renders it forbidden. Here the Mehaber sets the limit: that taste must actually improve. If it spoils (לפגם), it does not forbid. Do not be misled by the brevity: the eleven seifim that follow do nothing but measure that one word — when is a taste spoiled, and what may one do about it?
Seif 2 — The pot that is no longer בת יומא, and what the Sages forbade nonetheless
קדירה שאינה בת יומא דהיינו ששהתה מעת לעת משנתבשלו בה האיסור הויא נותן טעם לפגם ואפילו הכי אסרו חכמים לבשל בה לכתחלה גזירה אטו בת יומא בין שבלועה מאיסור ובא לבשל בה היתר ובין שבלועה מחלב ובא לבשל בה בשר או איפכא:
A pot that is not בת יומא — that is, one that has waited twenty-four hours (מעת לעת) since the forbidden food was cooked in it — is a case of a taste that spoils. And even so, the Sages forbade cooking in it at the outset (לכתחלה), as a decree lest it be confused with a pot that is בת יומא — whether it has absorbed a prohibited food and one comes to cook permitted food in it, or it has absorbed milk and one comes to cook meat in it, or the reverse.
The pivotal seif of the siman. Two levels are stacked here, and they must be kept apart: on the level of the Torah, a pot more than twenty-four hours old gives only a spoiled taste, so nothing is forbidden; on the rabbinic level, one does not use it at the outset, lest one slide into using a same-day pot. Hence the formula that governs the whole chapter: forbidden lechatchila, permitted bedieved. Note that the decree expressly covers both registers: prohibited food proper, and the meat-and-milk mixture.
Seif 3 — On what conditions the taste is truly spoiled: rinsing, and sharp foods
י״א הא דחשיבה פגומה כשאינה בת יומא דוקא שהדיחה יפה וסר ממנה כל שמנונית איסור הדבוק בה אבל אם לא הדיחה יפה שהאיסור הוא בעין אינו נפגם בשהיית מעת לעת (רשב״א וטור וראב״ד):הגה ומ״מ אם יש ששים רק נגד הדבוק בקדרה הכל שרי דמה שבקדרה כבר נפגם וא״צ בטול (כן משמע לעיל סימן צ״ה) י״א דבדברים חריפים לא אמרינן דין נותן טעם לפגם כמו שנתבאר לעיל סי׳ צ״ה וצ״ו ולכן אם בישל בקדירת איסור שאינה בת יומא מאכיל חריף כגון תבשיל שרובו חומץ או תבלין או שאר דברים חריפין אסור אבל לא מחשב התבשיל חריף משום מעט תבלין שבו (מרדכי פא״מ ורשב״א סי׳ תמ״ט) וכן נוהגין ועיין לעיל סי׳ צ״ה וצ״ו אבל אם היה האיסור דבר חריף ואח״כ שהה הקדירה מעת לעת ובשלו בו היתר שאינו חריף מותר דאין החריפות הראשון משוי ליה לשבח (ארוך כלל ל״ח):
Some say that a pot is deemed spoiled when it is not בת יומא only if it was well rinsed and all the forbidden fat clinging to it was removed; but if it was not well rinsed and the forbidden substance is present in kind (בעין), it is not spoiled by waiting twenty-four hours. Gloss of the Rama:nevertheless, if there is sixty against that clinging residue alone, all is permitted, for what the wall of the pot absorbed is already spoiled and needs no nullification. Some say that with sharp foods (דברים חריפים) we do not apply the rule of a taste that spoils: so if one cooked a sharp dish in a forbidden pot that is not בת יומא — for instance a dish mostly made of vinegar, or of spices, or of other sharp things — it is forbidden. But a dish is not reckoned sharp on account of a little seasoning in it; and such is the custom. If, however, the forbidden food itself was sharp, and the pot then waited twenty-four hours, and permitted food that is not sharp was cooked in it — it is permitted, for the earlier sharpness does not render that taste an improving one.
Two restrictions, two logics. The first is material: time spoils only what is absorbed into the wall; a residue left in kind on the surface does not degrade — hence the demand for rinsing. The second is gustatory: a sharp food rouses the dormant taste in the wall and makes it perceptible again. And the Rama immediately sets the measure: a few spices do not make a dish sharp. Note also the asymmetry of the last line: the problem lies in the sharpness of the dish being cooked now, not in that of the prohibited food of long ago.
Seif 4 — Meat and milk: heating water resets the clock
קדרה הבלועה מבשר וחלב אם קודם שעבר לילה אחד חממו בה מים חשיב כאילו חזר ונתבשל בה האיסור ומונים מעת לעת משעה שהוחמו המים מה שאין כן בשאר איסורים (טור סימן קכ״א וסימן צ״ד וע״ל סימן צ״ד ס״ק כ״ב וסימן ק״ג):
A pot that has absorbed meat and milk: if, before one night has passed, water was heated in it, that is reckoned as though the forbidden food had been cooked in it anew, and one counts the twenty-four hours from the moment the water was heated. This is not so for other prohibitions.
An exception with a precise reason. For an ordinary prohibition, water heated in the pot merely receives a taste without itself becoming forbidden. For meat and milk, the rule of חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה — “the piece itself becomes nevela” — applies: the water, having received that taste, becomes fully forbidden in its own right, and cooking it restarts the count. The Taz explains it in a single line (see section 5 below).
Group B — When the question does not arise: too little prohibition, and presumptions (seifim 5-8)
Seif 5 — A minute prohibition in a large vessel
איסור מועט שנבלע בכלי שדרכו שלא להשתמש בו בהיתר מועט בכדי שיתן זה טעם בהיתר כדי שישתמשו בו כמו קדירה גדולה וחבית וכיוצא בהן הרי זה מותר להשתמש בו לכתחלה אף על פי שהוא בן יומו לפי שאי אפשר לבא לידי נתינת טעם אבל אם הוא כלי שמשתמשין בו בדבר מועט כמו קערה וכיוצא בה אסור להשתמש בו שאין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה אפילו איסור מועט ואפילו איסור הבלוע:
A minute prohibition absorbed in a vessel that is never used with a quantity of permitted food small enough for that prohibition to impart taste — such as a large pot, a barrel and the like — : it is permitted to use it at the outset, even if it is בן יומו, since it is impossible to come to any imparting of taste. But if it is a vessel used for small quantities, such as a bowl and the like, it is forbidden to use it, for one does not nullify a prohibition at the outset — even a minute prohibition, and even an absorbed one.
Here the reasoning changes in kind. It is no longer about time but about proportion. In a barrel, a trace of prohibition can never impart taste: there is nothing to fear, even on the same day. In a bowl there is — and one then runs into another principle, independent of ours: one does not deliberately nullify a prohibition (אין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה). The Mehaber takes care to specify that this holds for an absorbed prohibition as well, not only for a visible one.
Seif 6 — The presumption about a non-Jew's vessels, and the ban on ordering cooking
סתם כלי עובד כוכבים הם בחזקת שאינם בני יומן לפיכך אם עבר ונשתמש בהם קודם הכשר התבשיל מותר: הגה אבל אם חמם מים בכלי של עובד כוכבים ללוש בהן פת אסור ללוש באותן מים דלדבר זה מקרי לכתחלה הואיל ועדיין לא התחיל הנאתו שלא הוחמו לשתיה (ש״ד והגהותיו) אבל דבר שנעשה בשבילו ולא בשביל דבר אחר אע״פ שהוא של עובד כוכבים וישראל קונה ממנו לכתחלה מותר דמאחר דכבר נעשה ביד עובד כוכבים מקרי דיעבד: אף על פי כן אסור לומר לעובד כוכבים בשל לי ירקות בקדרתך וכן לא יאמר לו עשה לי מרקחת שכל האומר בשל לי הרי הוא כאלו בישל בידיו ואפשר שעל ידי הרקחים (או שאר אומנים) מותר שכל האומנים מיחדים כלים נקיים למלאכתם כדי שלא יפגמו אומנותם ובעל נפש יחוש שדברים אלו מביאים לידי טהרה ונקיות:
The ordinary vessels of a non-Jew are presumed not to be בני יומן; therefore, if one transgressed and used them before kashering them, the dish is permitted. Gloss of the Rama: but if one heated water in a non-Jew's vessel in order to knead bread with it, it is forbidden to knead with that water, since for that purpose this still counts as lechatchila — the benefit has not yet begun, the water not having been heated for drinking. On the other hand, something made for its own sake and not for the sake of something else, even though it was made in a non-Jew's vessel and a Jew buys it from him, is permitted at the outset: since it is already made by the non-Jew's hand, that counts as bedieved. [The Mehaber continues:]Even so, it is forbidden to say to a non-Jew “cook me vegetables in your pot,” nor “make me a preserve” — for whoever says “cook for me” is as though he had cooked with his own hands. And it may be that through the confectioners — or other craftsmen — it is permitted, since all craftsmen set aside clean vessels for their trade so as not to spoil their work. And a person of soul (בעל נפש) will be mindful, for these matters lead to purity and cleanliness.
The most used presumption in the siman. We know nothing about a non-Jew's pot — and yet we decide: it is presumed not to have been used within the last twenty-four hours. The Shach lays bare its mechanism (see section 5): it is a double doubt. Note its exact scope: this presumption serves bedieved, once the deed is done — it never licenses cooking at the outset in a non-Jew's vessels. The Rama refines the dividing line: everything turns on when the benefit begins. And the seif closes on a note that is no longer strict law but conduct: the בעל נפש is watchful.
Seif 7 — The same presumption applies to our own vessels
כשם שסתם כליהם של עובדי כוכבים אינם בני יומן כך סתם כלים שלנו בחזקת שאינן בני יומן:
Just as the ordinary vessels of non-Jews are not בני יומן, so too our own ordinary vessels are presumed not to be בני יומן.
A one-line seif, of daily use. The presumption is not a leniency reserved for foreign vessels: it holds in our own kitchens. A ladle about which one no longer remembers whether it served for milk this morning or the day before yesterday is presumed not to be of the day — which, joined to seif 2, yields: one will not use it at the outset, but if it was used, the dish is not forbidden.
Seif 8 — A forbidden vessel lost among the others
כלי שנאסר בבליעת איסור ונתערב באחרים ואינו ניכר בטל ברוב (טור בשם רשב״א):
A vessel that became forbidden by absorbing a prohibition, which has become mixed with others and is no longer recognizable, is nullified in the majority (בטל ברוב).
Why does a majority suffice here, when a forbidden taste requires sixty? Because what is mixed here is not a taste but an object: a vessel lost among its fellows falls under the ordinary rule of mixtures of objects, in which the majority prevails. The Shach indeed notes (s.k. 7) that this seif repeats what was already said in siman 102 — a reminder rather than a novelty.
Group C — Vessels left with, sent to, or bought from a non-Jew (seifim 9-12)
Seif 9 — Not leaving one's ware with a non-Jew; the vessel entrusted to a craftsman
יש ליזהר מלהניח בבית עובד כוכבים כלי סעודה דחיישינן שמא ישתמש בהם: הגה ואפילו אם נתנם לאומן לתקנם צריך לעשות בהם סימן (ב״י בשם א״ח) שלא ישתמש בהם העובד כוכבים ואם עבר ולא עשה כשחזר ולקחן מן העובד כוכבים צריכים הגעלה ודוקא אם שהו קצת אצל העובד כוכבים דהיינו כחצי יום אבל לפי שעה אין לחוש (מרדכי פא״מ) וכל זה כשרוצה להשתמש בו ביום שנתנו לו דליכא אלא חדא ספיקא שמא נשתמש בו העובד כוכבים או לא אבל אם לא לקחו מן העובד כוכבים עד לאחר זמן דנוכל לומר אף אם נשתמש בו העובד כוכבים כבר נפגם ונשתהה מעל״ע או שנשתהה ביד ישראל לאחר שלקחו מן העובד כוכבים מעל״ע אזלינן לקולא ואין חוששין בדיעבד (סברת הרב) ואם לקחו מן העובד כוכבים באותו יום שנתנו לו ועבר ונשתמש בו בלא הגעלה יש אוסרים המאכל כמו בכלי שהוא בודאי בן יומו (ארוך) ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד ולכתחלה יש ליזהר בכל ענין אפילו בעבדים ושפחות העובדי כוכבים שבבית ישראל שלא לייחד כלים שלנו אצלן שמא ישתמשו בהן בדברים האסורים (שם במרדכי) וע״ל סימן קל״ו:
One must take care not to leave meal vessels in a non-Jew's house, for we suspect he may use them. Gloss of the Rama:even if they were handed to a craftsman for repair, one must put a mark on them so that the non-Jew does not use them; and if one failed to do so, when taking them back from him they require הגעלה. And this only if they stayed with him for some time, that is, about half a day; but for a brief while there is no cause for concern. And all this when one wishes to use them on the very day they were given to him, where there is then only a single doubt — did he use them or not? If, however, one did not take them back until later, so that we may say: even if he did use them, it is already spoiled and twenty-four hours have passed; or if they remained twenty-four hours in the Jew's hands after being taken back — we rule leniently and have no concern bedieved. And if one took them back on the same day and transgressed by using them without הגעלה, some forbid the food as with a vessel that is certainly בן יומו; and in case of need there is room to be lenient bedieved. And at the outset one must be careful in every case, even with non-Jewish servants and maids in a Jew's house: not to set aside our vessels for them, lest they use them for forbidden things. And see above, siman 136.
The seif in which all the pieces of the siman are reassembled. The Rama's reasoning is a counting of doubts: one doubt does not suffice to permit, two do. Taking the vessel back on the same day leaves only one question open; waiting — whether at the craftsman's or at home — adds a second, that of the now-spoiled taste, and leniency returns. Note the closing gradation, which is the Rama's signature in this siman: bedieved one is lenient, lechatchila one is careful in every case.
Seif 10 — Bowls sent to a non-Jew with food
קערות ששלח ישראל לעובד כוכבים עם מאכל ושהו שם אם ניכר בהם המאכל ששלח הישראל בתוכם מותר ואם לאו אסור אם רגילים להדיח הכלים בחמין דחיישינן שמא הודח עם כלי איסור:
Bowls that a Jew sent to a non-Jew with food and that remained there: if the food the Jew had put in them is still recognizable, they are permitted; if not, they are forbidden, where it is customary to wash vessels in hot water — for we suspect they may have been washed together with a forbidden vessel.
A material clue takes the place of testimony. Leftover food still visible proves that the bowl was not washed: it therefore cannot have taken on the taste of a forbidden vessel in scalding dishwater. This is reasoning by observation, not by presumption — and it shows in passing what the siman really fears in a foreign kitchen: less the pot itself than the shared dishwater.
Seif 11 — Buying from a non-Jew vessels he says are new
כלי סעודה שביד העובד כוכבים ומסיח לפי תומו ואומר שחדשים הם ויראה שהוא כמו שהוא אומר מותר לקנותם ממנו: הגה ויש מחמירים ואומרים שאינו נאמן ואין ליקח כלים מן העובד כוכבים רק כשמוכר הרבה כלים וקונה כלי בין הכלים (רשב״א בשם ר׳ יונה) וכן נוהגין לכתחלה אבל במקום הדחק כגון שנתארח בבית עובד כוכבים ואין לו כלים נוהגין כסברא הראשונה וכן עיקר ועיין לקמן סימן קל״ז:
Meal vessels in the hands of a non-Jew, who speaks without any particular intent (מסיח לפי תומו) and says they are new, and it appears to be as he says: it is permitted to buy them from him. Gloss of the Rama:some are stringent and say that he is not to be believed, and that one should take vessels from a non-Jew only when he is selling many vessels and one buys a vessel from among the vessels; and such is the custom at the outset. But in pressing circumstances — for instance when one is a guest in a non-Jew's house and has no vessels — we follow the first view, and that is indeed the main ruling. And see below, siman 137.
Why is a non-Jew believed here? The Shach says it in one line (s.k. 10): since a non-Jew's vessels are in any case presumed not to be בני יומן, what is at stake is only a rabbinic prohibition — and on a rabbinic prohibition a non-Jew speaking without intent is believed. The Rama, for his part, keeps the cautious path for ordinary circumstances (buying from within a lot, which brings the majority into play) and reserves the first view for cases of pressing need.
Seif 12 — Bowls that come from overseas
יש מי שאומר שקערות הבאות מעבר לים שקערורות ירקרקות או אדמדמות אסור להשתמש בהן לעולם בחמין מפני שאינן חדשות שהעובדי כוכבים משתמשים בהם ואינו ניכר:
There is one who says (יש מי שאומר) that bowls coming from overseas, hollowed, greenish or reddish, are forbidden ever to be used with hot food, because they are not new: non-Jews use them, and it is not noticeable.
The siman closes on a borderline case. The very look of these imported bowls — their hollow, their tint — betrays that they have already been used, without one's being able to say when or for what. Where seif 11 was content with “it appears to be as he says,” here the appearance says exactly the opposite. This view, cited by the Beit Yosef in the name of the Raavad via the Orḥot Ḥayim, is presented in the form reserved for isolated opinions: יש מי שאומר.
2. Context — where the principle נותן טעם לפגם comes from
The principle is discussed at length in tractate Avoda Zara. Rabbi Meir holds that a spoiled taste forbids just as an improving one does; Rabbi Shimon distinguishes. Rav Kahana sums up the accepted position:
That is: the Torah forbade only the same-day pot, whose taste is not yet spoiled. There remained the question of the rabbinic decree, which the Gemara settles a few folios later — and it is exactly the phrase the Mehaber will take up in seif 2:
When is a taste “spoiled”? The siman's answer is first a measure of time: twenty-four hours (seif 2). Then two reservations: rinsing and sharp foods (seif 3).
If it is permitted, why abstain? Because the permission is Toraitic, whereas the Sages forbade use at the outset — this is the whole tension between lechatchila and bedieved.
And when one does not know? The siman does not leave the question open: it supplies presumptions (seifim 6 and 7) and counts doubts (seif 9).
What of vessels beyond our sight? Seifim 9 to 12 spell out the same worry: the vessel left at the craftsman's, the bowl sent out, the vessel bought second-hand.
This siman deals neither with kashering (הכשר כלים, the subject of siman 121) nor with immersion (טבילת כלים, the subject of siman 120). It answers a question prior to both: what, in law, is the worth of what a vessel has absorbed once time has passed? Its answer — nothing, but not at the outset — is what makes life in a real kitchen bearable.
3. Key concepts of this siman
נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם — a taste that spoils. A forbidden taste that damages permitted food instead of improving it does not render it forbidden. The Rambam sets the condition: it must spoil from beginning to end (Hilkhot Ma'akhalot Assurot, chapter 15, halakha 28). This is the parent rule of the entire siman, stated in seif 1 in three words.
בַּת יוֹמָא / בֶּן יוֹמוֹ — “of the same day.” Said of a vessel in which the forbidden food was cooked less than twenty-four hours ago. What it has absorbed is still deemed good, and therefore forbidding. Past that interval it becomes אֵינָהּ בַּת יוֹמָא: what it holds is deemed spoiled.
מֵעֵת לְעֵת — the twenty-four hours. The exact measure of the interval: from a given moment to the same moment the next day. Seif 4 shows that this count can be restarted — in matters of meat and milk, by water merely heated in the vessel.
גְּזֵירָה אַטּוּ בַּת יוֹמָא — the decree of resemblance. The Sages forbid using at the outset a pot that is in fact permitted, lest one end up using a same-day pot. It is this decree, and it alone, that separates lechatchila from bedieved throughout the siman.
בְּעֵין — the prohibition “in kind.” A residue left on the surface, visible and palpable, as opposed to the taste absorbed into the wall. Time spoils what is absorbed, not the residue — hence the requirement, in seif 3, of a careful rinsing before the twenty-four hours are counted.
דְּבָרִים חֲרִיפִים — sharp foods. Vinegar, spices, condiments: their strength rouses the dormant taste in the wall and makes it improving again. The rule of a taste that spoils is therefore not applied to them (seif 3). The Rama at once sets the limit: a little seasoning does not make a dish sharp.
אֵין מְבַטְּלִין אִיסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה — one does not nullify a prohibition at the outset. A principle independent of ours, invoked in seif 5: even where the prohibition would in any case be nullified, one does not go about it deliberately. The Mehaber specifies that it holds for an absorbed prohibition too, not only a visible one.
סְתָם כְּלֵי עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים — the presumption about vessels. A vessel whose history is unknown is presumed not to have been used within twenty-four hours (seif 6). Seif 7 expressly extends the presumption to our own vessels. Its force is that of a double doubt (see the Shach, section 5) — and its scope is bedieved, not lechatchila.
מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ — speaking without particular intent. A non-Jew who supplies information in passing, unaware that it bears on a halakhic question, is believed regarding a rabbinic prohibition. This is what permits, in seif 11, buying vessels he says are new.
4. The summary table — lechatchila, bedieved, forbidden
The siman almost never answers simply “permitted” or “forbidden”: it answers in two columns, may it be done at the outset? and if it was done, is the dish permitted? Here is what the twelve seifim yield.
המקרה
Situation
At the outset (לכתחלה)
After the fact (בדיעבד)
Seif
קדירה בת יומא
Same-day pot
No
The dish is forbidden
1-2 a contrario
קדירה שאינה בת יומא
Pot older than 24 h
No — decree
The dish is permitted
2
לא הדיחה יפה · איסור בעין
Poorly rinsed, residue in kind
No
Not spoiled by time; Rama: sixty against the residue alone
3
תבשיל שרובו חומץ
Mostly vinegared dish, in a forbidden pot not בת יומא
No
Forbidden
3
מעט תבלין
Only a little seasoning
—
Not reckoned sharp · וכן נוהגין
3 (Rama)
האיסור היה חריף · ואח״כ מעת לעת
The prohibition was sharp, then 24 h, then non-sharp permitted food
—
Permitted
3 (Rama)
בשר וחלב · חממו בה מים
Meat and milk, water heated before nightfall
—
The 24-hour count restarts
4
איסור מועט · קדירה גדולה וחבית
Minute prohibition, large vessel
Permitted, even בן יומו
Permitted
5
איסור מועט · קערה
Minute prohibition, bowl
Forbidden — אין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה
—
5
סתם כלי עובד כוכבים
Ordinary vessel of a non-Jew
No
The dish is permitted
6
חמם מים ללוש בהן פת
Water heated for kneading
Forbidden — still lechatchila
—
6 (Rama)
סתם כלים שלנו
Our own vessels
No
Presumed not בני יומן
7
כלי שנאסר ונתערב
Forbidden vessel mixed with others
—
בטל ברוב
8
כלים אצל אומן · חצי יום
Half a day at the craftsman's, unmarked
Put a mark on them
הגעלה required
9 (Rama)
כלים אצל אומן · לפי שעה
A brief while at the craftsman's
—
No concern
9 (Rama)
נשתהה מעת לעת
24 h elapsed, at his place or ours
—
אזלינן לקולא
9 (Rama)
קערות שנשלחו · ניכר בהן המאכל
Bowls sent out, food still visible
—
Permitted
10
קערות שנשלחו · אינו ניכר
Bowls sent out, nothing visible
—
Forbidden (where washing is done in hot water)
10
מסיח לפי תומו · חדשים הם
The non-Jew says the vessels are new
Rama: buy from within a lot
Permitted to buy them · in pressing need, וכן עיקר
11
קערות הבאות מעבר לים
Bowls from overseas, greenish or reddish
Forbidden ever for hot use
—
12
Read from top to bottom, the last two columns tell the story of the siman: almost everything forbidden is forbidden only at the outset. The one place where the dish itself becomes forbidden is where the taste is not spoiled — the same-day pot, the residue in kind, the sharp food.
5. The Taz and the Shach — two key entries
The two great commentaries printed around the Shulchan Aruch of Yoreh De'ah are the Taz (Turei Zahav, Rabbi David haLevi Segal, 1586-1667) and the Shach (Siftei Kohen, Rabbi Shabtai haCohen, 1621-1662). On this siman, each lights up a different spot.
A key entry from the Taz
Taz s.k. 2 — why meat and milk restart the count
הטעם דבבשר בחלב אמרינן חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה
— ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב
The reason is that, with meat and milk, we say that the piece itself becomes nevela.
One line, and seif 4 becomes clear. With other prohibitions, water heated in the pot receives a taste without changing its nature. With meat and milk, it becomes forbidden in its own right — so a prohibition has just been cooked in the pot, and a fresh twenty-four-hour count starts from there. The Taz himself refers to siman 103, where the rule is established.
A key entry from the Shach
Shach s.k. 4 — the mechanism of the presumption
הטעם כתבו הפוסקים דהוי ספק ספיקא ספק נשתמשו בו היום או אתמול ואת״ל נשתמשו בו היום שמא נשתמשו בו בדבר שהוא פוגם
— ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד
The reason, the decisors write, is that this is a double doubt: doubt — was it used today or yesterday? and even granting it was used today — perhaps it was used with something that spoils.
The Shach does not merely state the presumption of seif 6: he takes apart its mechanism. This is no leniency of convenience but a full ספק ספיקא. And he immediately draws the consequence that decides practice: where there is only one doubt, the permission falls — hence the ban on cooking at the outset in a non-Jew's vessels, and hence, in seif 9, the Rama's whole reckoning of the time spent at the craftsman's.
6. The Rama's gloss (הגה) — four interventions
The Rama intervenes in only four of the twelve seifim — 3, 6, 9 and 11 — but each of his glosses falls on the point where the rule meets real life.
On seif 3 — the measure of sharpness
Two contributions. First a leniency of reckoning: if there is sixty against the clinging residue alone, all is permitted, since what the wall absorbed is already spoiled and needs no nullification. Then a measure: sharp foods are an exception to our principle, but אבל לא מחשב התבשיל חריף משום מעט תבלין שבו — a few spices are not enough to make a dish sharp. He concludes with the formula of received custom: וכן נוהגין.
On seif 6 — where the benefit begins
The Mehaber permitted bedieved. The Rama then asks: from what point is one truly “after the fact”? His answer turns on the destination of the act: water heated in order to knead has not yet fulfilled its office — one is still lechatchila, and it is forbidden to knead with it. Whereas a thing already made by the non-Jew's hand is bedieved and may be bought without difficulty.
On seif 9 — the counting of doubts
This is the longest gloss in the siman, and the most practical: the mark to be put on an entrusted vessel, half a day as the threshold, the distinction between taking it back the same day (one doubt) and later (two doubts), the הגעלה where one forgot, leniency bedieved in case of need — and the closing note of caution about household staff.
On seif 11 — custom and pressing need
The Mehaber believes the non-Jew who says his vessels are new; the Rama cites the stringent views and fixes the custom: buy a vessel from within a lot, which brings the majority into play rather than the spoken word. But he expressly reserves the case of pressing need, where we follow the first view, וכן עיקר.
One line runs through these four glosses: the Rama almost never contests the underlying permission — he delimits its entrance. Where lechatchila ends, where bedieved begins, what quantity tips the balance, how many doubts are in play. This is work on thresholds, not on principles.
7. Modern practical cases
Case 1 — Cooking in the wrong pot
A dairy saucepan was used last night; this morning, absent-mindedly, a meat dish is reheated in it. Seif 2 supplies the structure of the answer: if twenty-four hours have elapsed, what the wall gave off is a spoiled taste, and the dish is not forbidden — while it was forbidden to do so at the outset. Two checks required by seif 3 remain: had the pan been well washed, and was the dish sharp? A real case is put to a Rav; this level supplies the questions, not the ruling.
Case 2 — The caterer's pot, borrowed for an evening
A large stockpot borrowed, whose use the day before is unknown. Two seifim combine: seif 7 presumes it not בן יומו, and seif 5 recalls that a large vessel cannot in any case transmit a perceptible taste from a minute prohibition. But neither of them licenses using it at the outset without kashering: the presumption serves after the fact.
Case 3 — Vessels entrusted to a workshop
Knives to be sharpened, pans to be re-tinned, an appliance left for repair: this is exactly seif 9. The act the Rama requires is to put a mark on them. And his reckoning applies as it stands: a deposit of a few minutes raises no question; a deposit of half a day or more with retrieval the same day leads to הגעלה; a deposit from which the object is retrieved only later brings the second doubt into play and permits leniency.
Case 4 — Having someone else do the cooking
Seif 6 is clear on a point easily forgotten: the bedieved permission does not cover the act of ordering the cooking — שכל האומר בשל לי הרי הוא כאלו בישל בידיו. The Mehaber does open a door on the side of craftsmen, who set aside clean vessels for their trade, but he closes it with a demand of conduct: the person of soul will be mindful. The entire question of industrial kashrut and modern supervision is an extension of this seif.
Case 5 — Second-hand ware
Flea markets, second-hand goods, ware taken over with a flat: seifim 11 and 12 frame the question. Seif 11 allows reliance on a seller who speaks without particular intent and whose goods look like what he says; the Rama prefers buying from within a lot. Seif 12 shows the reverse case: when the very look of the object betrays that it has been used, the spoken word no longer suffices. And the registers must not be confused: this question exempts one neither from kashering (siman 121) nor from tevila (siman 120).
8. Synthesis of Siman 122
In one sentence: a forbidden taste that spoils renders nothing forbidden — so that what a vessel absorbed more than twenty-four hours ago no longer forbids anything; but the Sages barred its use at the outset, and the twelve seifim do nothing but refine the four emphasized words: spoils, twenty-four hours, at the outset, and — when one does not know — what we presume.
Memory table
The question
The criterion
Where
When is a taste permitted?
When it spoils the food
seif 1
From when is it spoiled?
מעת לעת — twenty-four hours
seif 2
Why abstain, then?
A decree: lechatchila no, bedieved yes
seif 2
Two reservations?
Poorly rinsed (איסור בעין) · a sharp dish
seif 3
Can the count restart?
Yes, with meat and milk, through heated water
seif 4
And if the prohibition is minute?
Large vessel: permitted even בן יומו · bowl: no
seif 5
What do we presume?
Not בן יומו — at the non-Jew's and at ours
seifim 6-7
A forbidden vessel gone astray?
בטל ברוב
seif 8
A vessel left with a third party?
A mark; then one counts the doubts
seif 9
A bowl back from his house?
Is the food still visible?
seif 10
Buying vessels?
מסיח לפי תומו · Rama: from within a lot
seif 11
And the visibly used object?
Appearance belies the word: forbidden for hot use
seif 12
Comprehension questions
Seif 1 permits a taste that spoils, and seif 2 nevertheless forbids using the pot. Is there a contradiction? On which two distinct levels do these two seifim stand?
Why does seif 3 require that the pot have been well rinsed? What does time spoil, and what does it not?
Is a peppered dish a “sharp food” in the sense of seif 3? Which phrase of the Rama answers?
Why does heated water restart the twenty-four-hour count for meat and milk and not for other prohibitions? Which line of the Taz explains it?
In seif 5, a barrel and a bowl hold the same minute prohibition. Why is one permitted even בן יומו and the other forbidden?
Seif 6 permits bedieved, yet the Rama forbids kneading with the heated water. Where, in his view, does the border run between lechatchila and bedieved?
In seif 9, why is retrieving the vessel the next day more lenient than retrieving it the same day?
Seifim 11 and 12 both deal with vessels bought from a non-Jew. What, in seif 12, prevents applying the solution of seif 11?
Going further
If you wish to go deeper into this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpul — the dispute of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon in Avoda Zara, the ḥakira on the nature of the decree אטו בת יומא, and the status of sharp foods
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (lechatchila / bedieved, presumptions, the counting of time) and rapid review of the 12 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'aseh: the practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Hadash, Pitchei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim
The sources of this level may be consulted on Sefaria: