✦ ❖ ✦ D A A T · L E V E L 3 — S Y N T H E S I S / R E V I E W ✦ ❖ ✦

Siman 122 — Notén taam lifgam — a taste that spoils, in vessels

דין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים

When a spoiling taste permits and when it permits nothing: the twenty-four hours, a vessel בן יומו and אינו בן יומו, forbidden matter left בעין, sharp foods, and the presumptions about their vessels and about ours
Structured review, psak tables, rapid memorisation

Source: Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah קכ״ב — 12 seifim
Nossei kelim: ש״ך (Shach) · ט״ז (Taz) · באר הגולה · ביאור הגר״א · פתחי תשובה · באר היטב
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT
For students who have mastered Levels 1 and 2
daattorah.com

📑 Plan of the synthesis

The axiom: נותן טעם לפגם מותר — where it comes from and what it permits
The 3 reflex questions: time · the nature of the food · לכתחלה or בדיעבד
Master grid A — time: בן יומו and אינו בן יומו (seifim 2 and 4)
Master grid B — what cancels the spoiling: forbidden matter בעין and the דבר חריף (seif 3)
Master grid C — the two presumptions: their vessels and ours (seifim 6 and 7)
Vessels entrusted, left or bought at a non-Jew's (seifim 9 to 12)
Two side rules: a small prohibition in a large vessel, and a vessel lost in a mixture (seifim 5 and 8)
The 6 golden rules
Mnemonic — the « לפגם » aide-mémoire
The 5 classic pitfalls
Recap of the 12 seifim — one line each
Final flashcard

1. The axiom: נותן טעם לפגם מותר

The starting point:

Siman 122 opens with four words and nothing else: נותן טעם לפגם מותר — “a taste that spoils is permitted” (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:א). All the rest of the siman is the small print. The principle itself comes from the baraita's machloket between רבי מאיר and רבי שמעון, and the halacha follows רבי שמעון: « לְשֶׁבַח — אָסוּר, וְלִפְגָם — מוּתָּר » (עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב). רב כהנא derives it from the whole body of sources: « מִדִּבְרֵי כּוּלָּם נִלְמַד נוֹתֵן טַעַם לִפְגָם מוּתָּר » (עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב).

But note the siman's title: בכלים. A spoiling taste from one food fallen into another is Siman 103 — and the Shach opens our siman by sending the reader there: summary — up to the end of seif 4 everything has already been properly set out in Siman 103 (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק א). Here the taste is the one sleeping in the wall of a vessel.

The source	What it establishes	Its consequence in the siman
« לְשֶׁבַח — אָסוּר, וְלִפְגָם — מוּתָּר » (עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב)	A taste that improves forbids; a taste that spoils does nothing	The opening sentence of seif 1
« לֹא אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא, דְּלָא לִפְגָם הוּא » (עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב)	The Torah forbade only a pot of the day, whose taste has not yet spoiled	The twenty-four hour line — seif 2
« גְּזֵירָה קְדֵירָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בַּת יוֹמָא מִשּׁוּם קְדֵירָה בַּת יוֹמָא » (עבודה זרה ע״ו ע״א)	The Sages re-forbade לכתחלה what the Torah permitted	אסרו חכמים לבשל בה לכתחלה — seif 2

💡 The signpost: the whole siman is read on two storeys. Below, Torah law: a spoiled taste does not forbid — hence בדיעבד, what was cooked is permitted. Above, rabbinic law: a pot in which a prohibited thing was cooked remains forbidden to use — hence לכתחלה, one does not cook in it. Whenever a seif seems to contradict itself, simply ask which storey it is speaking on.

⚖ Two ways a taste can be פגום

By its nature — the prohibited substance is of the kind that ruins the dish it falls into, the classic case of גיעולי גויים. The רמב״ם lays down the decisive condition: summary — it must spoil from beginning to end; what spoils at first but ends by improving, or improves at first even though it ends by spoiling, remains forbidden (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק ט״ו הלכה כ״ח).
By time — the taste was good, and waiting spoiled it. This is the mechanism proper to our siman: קדירה שאינה בת יומא (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב).

Keep the practical difference in mind: spoiling by nature cannot be undone; spoiling by time can be cancelled — by prohibited matter left בעין or by a sharp food (seif 3), and it can even be reset to zero (seif 4).

2. The 3 reflex questions

■ 1. TIME — how many hours since the prohibited thing was cooked in it? Less than twenty-four hours: the pot is בת יומא, its taste is still לשבח, nothing to hope for. Twenty-four hours or more: הויא נותן טעם לפגם — yet still forbidden לכתחלה (seif 2). And for a pot of בשר בחלב the count may start over (seif 4).

↓ if time has done its work, what can undo it?

■ 2. NATURE — is the prohibited matter still בעין, and is what you are cooking חריף? A badly rinsed pot, where forbidden fat is still stuck on, does not spoil with waiting; and a sharp dish — mainly vinegar, spices, or other sharp things — is not governed by the rule of נותן טעם לפגם (seif 3).

↓ if the taste really is spoiled and nothing cancels it, where do you stand?

■ 3. THE STOREY — לכתחלה or בדיעבד? This is the question that settles everything. לכתחלה, the rabbinic prohibition stands. בדיעבד — the food is already cooked, or the vessel is one whose history is unknown — the presumption סתם כלי עובד כוכבים הם בחזקת שאינם בני יומן tips the case to the permitted side (seifim 6 and 7).

3. Master grid A — time: בן יומו and אינו בן יומו

Basis: seifim 2 and 4 of the Mehaber, with the ט״ז and the פתחי תשובה. The twenty-four hours are counted from the moment the prohibited thing was cooked in the vessel, not from the day it was acquired nor from the day it was washed.

Situation	Status of the taste	Verdict	Source
A pot in which the prohibited thing cooked less than 24 h ago (בת יומא)	לשבח — the taste is still good	Forbidden, and what is cooked in it is forbidden	עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב ; שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב a contrario
A pot in which 24 h have passed — ששהתה מעת לעת משנתבשלו בה האיסור	פגום — הויא נותן טעם לפגם	Permitted בדיעבד, forbidden לכתחלה	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
The reason for that rabbinic prohibition	A decree of caution	גזירה אטו בת יומא	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב ; עבודה זרה ע״ו ע״א
A pot absorbed with a prohibited food, and one wishes to cook permitted food in it	Same	The same decree	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
A pot absorbed with milk, and one wishes to cook meat in it — or the reverse	Same	ובין שבלועה מחלב ובא לבשל בה בשר או איפכא	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
A pot absorbed with בשר בחלב in which water was heated before one night had passed	The count starts over	ומונים מעת לעת משעה שהוחמו המים	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ד
Why the count restarts	חתיכה נעשית נבילה	The ט״ז: « דבבשר בחלב אמרינן חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה »	ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב
Other prohibitions, in the same situation	The count does not restart	מה שאין כן בשאר איסורים	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ד

📌 Key reading: seif 4 is the only place in the siman where time moves backwards. Everywhere else the clock runs one way only: the longer the vessel waits, the more its taste spoils. Here, heating water in a בשר בחלב pot that is still בת יומא recreates the prohibition — because in בשר בחלב alone we say that what was absorbed itself becomes נבילה, so that this water is fresh prohibited matter now entering the walls (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב, referring to Siman 103).

⚖ Two discussions of the פתחי תשובה about this threshold

Does a merely rabbinic prohibition fall under the decree? summary — the נודע ביהודה writes that strictly it would be permitted לכתחלה, since that would be a decree upon a decree; but that one should not rely on this, as the poskim have not written such a ruling (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב).
And after twelve months? summary — the חכם צבי permits cooking a sharp food on Pesach in a chametz pot over which twelve months have passed, since after twelve months no taste at all remains, as with jars of יין נסך; yet he did not bring himself to permit cooking in it לכתחלה, and both the פנים מאירות and the רשב״א in his responsa disagree (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג).

4. Master grid B — what cancels the spoiling: matter בעין and the דבר חריף

Seif 3 is the lamdanic heart of the siman. It brings two corrections to seif 2: time spoils only what has been absorbed, and it spoils only with respect to a food that is not sharp.

Case	Does the spoiling hold?	The decisive words	Source
A pot not בת יומא, well rinsed, with no forbidden fat stuck on it	🟢 Yes	דוקא שהדיחה יפה וסר ממנה כל שמנונית איסור הדבוק בה	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ג (י״א: רשב״א, טור, ראב״ד)
A pot not בת יומא badly rinsed, the prohibited matter still בעין	🔴 No	אינו נפגם בשהיית מעת לעת	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ג
The same case, but there is sixty against what is stuck alone	🟢 Everything is permitted	The Rama: דמה שבקדרה כבר נפגם וא״צ בטול	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג, referring to Siman 95
Cooking a sharp dish in a prohibited pot that is not בת יומא	🔴 No — forbidden	The Rama: י״א דבדברים חריפים לא אמרינן דין נותן טעם לפגם	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג, referring to Simanim 95 and 96
What counts as a sharp dish: mainly vinegar, spices, other sharp things	🔴 No	The Rama means תבשיל שרובו חומץ או תבלין או שאר דברים חריפין	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג
An ordinary dish into which a little spice was put	🟢 Yes — this is not a sharp dish	אבל לא מחשב התבשיל חריף משום מעט תבלין שבו, וכן נוהגין	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג, in the name of the מרדכי and the רשב״א סימן תמ״ט
It was the original prohibited food that was sharp; 24 h later a non-sharp permitted food is cooked in it	🟢 Yes — permitted	דאין החריפות הראשון משוי ליה לשבח	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג, in the name of the ארוך כלל ל״ח

⚠ The sharpness one looks at is not the one people assume: what blocks the spoiling is the sharp character of what you are cooking now — sharpness rouses the wall and draws the taste out as though it were לשבח. The sharp character of the past prohibited food blocks nothing: the end of seif 3 says so expressly.

💡 The Shach extends the rule: summary — if a sharp food was cooked in a meat pot that is not בת יומא and then milk was cooked in it within twenty-four hours, the dish is permitted, and we do not say that the sharpness in the pot now makes it emit its taste לשבח; likewise if a sharp food was cooked in a prohibited pot that is not בת יומא and twenty-four hours then passed from that cooking (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב, in the name of the דרכי משה and the תורת חטאת כלל ס״א).

5. Master grid C — the two presumptions: their vessels and ours

Seifim 6 and 7 are what make everything else workable: without them no vessel whose history is unknown would ever be usable.

Point	The rule	Source
A non-Jew's vessels, when nothing is known about them	סתם כלי עובד כוכבים הם בחזקת שאינם בני יומן	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
The consequence when one transgressed and used them before kashering	לפיכך אם עבר ונשתמש בהם קודם הכשר התבשיל מותר	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
The mechanism of the presumption	summary — it is a ספק ספיקא: perhaps they did not use it today, and even if they did, perhaps with something that spoils	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד ; ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד
Why that is not enough לכתחלה	summary — for cooking לכתחלה only one doubt remains, and a pot that is not בת יומא is forbidden לכתחלה	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד
Water heated in the non-Jew's vessel in order to knead bread	Forbidden to knead with that water: for this it is still לכתחלה — הואיל ועדיין לא התחיל הנאתו	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ו, in the name of the שערי דורא and its glosses
The same water, had it been heated for drinking	summary — the Shach: it would be permitted to drink, since for that it already counts as בדיעבד	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ה, in the name of the תורת חטאת כלל נ״ט
Something the non-Jew made for his own sake, which the Jew then buys	Permitted לכתחלה, since it was already done by his hand — מקרי דיעבד	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ו ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ו
Telling him “cook me vegetables in your pot”, or “make me a preserve”	Forbidden — שכל האומר בשל לי הרי הוא כאלו בישל בידיו	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
Going through an apothecary, or another craftsman	אפשר that this is permitted: craftsmen keep clean vessels for their trade so as not to spoil their work	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
The Mehaber's moral conclusion	ובעל נפש יחוש שדברים אלו מביאים לידי טהרה ונקיות	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
Our own vessels, when nothing is known about them	כך סתם כלים שלנו בחזקת שאינן בני יומן	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ז ; ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ו
A difference between the two presumptions	summary — the באר שבע: for our own vessels the presumption applies only when the owner is not before us to be asked; whereas a non-Jew is not asked even when present, since his word neither forbids nor permits	פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ו

📌 Key reading: the presumption of seif 6 is not a leniency about the vessel, it is a count of doubts. Two doubts suffice to permit after the fact; one does not suffice to permit in advance. That is why the same seif says in one breath that the non-Jew's vessel still needs kashering — and that if one transgressed, the food remains permitted.

6. Vessels entrusted, left or bought at a non-Jew's

The last four seifim leave the pot for everyday life: what one leaves with others, what one sends them, what one buys from them.

Situation	Verdict	The decisive detail	Source
Leaving meal vessels in a non-Jew's house	🔴 To be avoided	דחיישינן שמא ישתמש בהם	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ט
Vessels given to a craftsman for repair	🟡 Put a mark on them	The Rama: צריך לעשות בהם סימן so that he does not use them	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט, in the name of the ב״י בשם א״ח
No mark, and the vessels stayed about half a day	🔴 הגעלה on return	ודוקא אם שהו קצת אצל העובד כוכבים דהיינו כחצי יום	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט
They stayed only a short while	🟢 Nothing to fear	אבל לפי שעה אין לחוש	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט, in the name of the מרדכי פרק אין מעמידין
The ט״ז on that half day	🟡 A matter of use, not of the clock	summary — “half a day” is not what is written in the gemara: each object is judged by its own use, a drinking vessel is a concern even for a short while, a cooking vessel only after a long stay	ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ז
They were taken back only after a delay, or stayed 24 h with the Jew	🟢 We incline to leniency	The Rama: אזלינן לקולא ואין חוששין בדיעבד (סברת הרב)	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ח
Taken back the same day and used without הגעלה	🔴 יש אוסרים המאכל	Like a vessel that is certainly בן יומו (ארוך). The Rama adds: ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט
The ט״ז on that last leniency	🔴 He rejects it	« כבר נתבאר שלענין הלכה לא קיימא לן כן »	ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ט
Non-Jewish servants in a Jewish home	🟡 לכתחלה, do not set our vessels aside for them	But the Shach: summary — people are no longer careful about this, because such servants are always in the Jew's house while he comes and goes, a case where it is permitted even לכתחלה	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ט, referring to Siman 118
Bowls sent to a non-Jew with food and left there	🟢 If the food is still recognisable in them	אם ניכר בהם המאכל ששלח הישראל בתוכם מותר ואם לאו אסור	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:י
The reason for forbidding when nothing is recognisable	🔴 Only where dishes are washed in hot water	דחיישינן שמא הודח עם כלי איסור	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:י
Buying vessels a non-Jew says are new, מסיח לפי תומו	🟢 The Mehaber permits	The condition: ויראה שהוא כמו שהוא אומר	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:י״א
The basis of that trust	🟢 Only a rabbinic prohibition	The Shach: summary — since their vessels are not בני יומן, only a rabbinic prohibition is at stake, and a non-Jew speaking מסיח לפי תומו is believed on a rabbinic prohibition	ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק י
The Rama's custom	🟡 יש מחמירים	Buy only כשמוכר הרבה כלים וקונה כלי בין הכלים — וכן נוהגין לכתחלה	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:י״א, in the name of the רשב״א בשם ר׳ יונה
In a pressing situation — a guest at a non-Jew's with no vessels	🟢 We follow the Mehaber	נוהגין כסברא הראשונה וכן עיקר ; and see Siman 137	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:י״א
Bowls that come from overseas, hollowed, greenish or reddish	🔴 יש מי שאומר: never with hot	מפני שאינן חדשות שהעובדי כוכבים משתמשים בהם ואינו ניכר	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:י״ב

7. Two side rules: a small prohibition in a large vessel, and a vessel lost in a mixture

Seif 5 — when disproportion permits

A small amount of prohibited matter absorbed into a vessel that is never used with so little permitted food that the prohibited matter could give taste to it — a large pot, a barrel: one may use it לכתחלה, even if it is בן יומו, לפי שאי אפשר לבא לידי נתינת טעם. But a vessel used with a small quantity — a bowl — remains forbidden, שאין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה אפילו איסור מועט ואפילו איסור הבלוע (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ה).

⚖ A seif the nossei kelim do not accept

The Shach: « והרא״ה והטור השיגו ע״ז », and so the ב״ח ruled (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג). The Taz is sharper still: summary — as regards halacha we do not hold this way, as he established in Siman 99 (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג). So remember seif 5 as the Mehaber's position, contested by both great commentators — and do not treat it as an everyday permission.

Seif 8 — the vessel lost in the pile

כלי שנאסר בבליעת איסור ונתערב באחרים ואינו ניכר בטל ברוב (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ח, in the name of the טור בשם רשב״א). A vessel is not a food: it is not measured in sixty, it is nullified by a simple majority. The Shach notes that the rule is given elsewhere: summary — it is a repetition of Siman 102, where it was explained (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ז).

8. The 6 golden rules

A taste that spoils does not forbid. That is the whole sentence of seif 1, and the entire siman is only its application to the walls of a vessel (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:א).
Twenty-four hours from the cooking of the prohibited food — and from nothing else: that is the threshold from בת יומא to אינה בת יומא (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב).
Permitted בדיעבד never means permitted לכתחלה. Spoiling by time was re-forbidden by the Sages, גזירה אטו בת יומא (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב).
Time spoils only what is absorbed. Forbidden fat left בעין on the wall does not spoil by waiting: the pot must have been well rinsed (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ג).
Sharpness cancels the spoiling. A dish mainly of vinegar, spices or other sharp things does not benefit from the rule; an ordinary dish with a little spice does (רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג).
In ignorance, presume the vessel is not בן יומו — one's own as much as a non-Jew's. It is a ספק ספיקא: enough בדיעבד, never לכתחלה (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו-ז ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד).

9. Mnemonic — the « לפגם » aide-mémoire

ל-פ-ג-ם — the four letters of the word לפגם

ל — לכתחלה ובדיעבד: the two storeys of the siman. A spoiled taste permits after the fact; it never authorises cooking in advance (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב).
פ — פגום ולא בעין: time spoils only the absorbed taste. What remains visible on the wall is not spoiled by waiting (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ג).
ג — גזירה: a pot that is אינה בת יומא stays forbidden לכתחלה, גזירה אטו בת יומא (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב ; עבודה זרה ע״ו ע״א).
ם — מעת לעת: it is time that spoils — twenty-four hours from the cooking, and for בשר בחלב the count may start over (שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב, ד).

The ladder of the pot — from the most forbidden to the most permitted

בת יומא (less than 24 h) → forbidden, and the dish is forbidden (seif 2, a contrario)
אינה בת יומא + מאכל חריף → forbidden: sharpness cancels the spoiling (seif 3)
אינה בת יומא + איסור בעין → forbidden: nothing was spoiled (seif 3)
אינה בת יומא, well rinsed → forbidden לכתחלה, permitted בדיעבד (seif 2)
כלי שאין ידוע (their vessels or ours) → presumed not בן יומו: permitted בדיעבד (seifim 6-7)
איסור מועט בכלי גדול → the Mehaber permits even לכתחלה — but the Shach and the Taz object (seif 5)

10. The 5 classic pitfalls

❌ Pitfall 1 — Reading « נותן טעם לפגם מותר » as a permission to use: it is not a permission to use the vessel, it is a permission to eat what was made in it. Seif 2 says so in the same sentence: the pot really is נותן טעם לפגם, ואפילו הכי אסרו חכמים לבשל בה לכתחלה. Never turn a בדיעבד into a practice.

❌ Pitfall 2 — Believing that twenty-four hours always suffice: seif 3 overturns that twice. First when the pot was not well washed and the prohibited matter remained בעין — waiting spoils nothing that was not absorbed. Then when what is cooked in it is חריף — sharpness draws the taste out as though it were לשבח. Both exceptions sit in the same seif: never recite seif 2 without seif 3.

❌ Pitfall 3 — Counting the twenty-four hours from the wrong moment: the starting point is the cooking of the prohibited food — משנתבשלו בה האיסור — not the purchase, not the washing, not just any last use. And seif 4 adds a case where the clock is reset: in a בשר בחלב pot, heating water before one night has passed recreates the prohibition and the count starts from that hour — which is not so for other prohibitions.

❌ Pitfall 4 — Taking seif 5 for a general rule: the idea that a small prohibited amount absorbed into a very large vessel would permit using it לכתחלה even when בן יומו is the Mehaber's position, and both great commentators reject it: the Shach cites the objection of the רא״ה and the טור and the ruling of the ב״ח, and the Taz writes that as regards halacha we do not hold this way (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג ; ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג). A seif of the Mehaber is not always the accepted halacha.

❌ Pitfall 5 — Confusing the two outcomes of seif 9: vessels taken back from the non-Jew on the same day carry only one doubt and require הגעלה; those taken back only after a delay, or which then wait twenty-four hours with the Jew, carry two and we incline to leniency. And the Rama's final leniency, ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד, is rejected by the Taz: « כבר נתבאר שלענין הלכה לא קיימא לן כן » (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ט).

For halacha le-ma'aseh, consult your Rav.

11. Recap of the 12 seifim — one line each

Seif	Subject	The essentials
1	The principle	נותן טעם לפגם מותר — four words, and the siman's title: דין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים, in twelve seifim.
2	The pot that is not בת יומא	A pot in which twenty-four hours have passed since the prohibited food cooked in it is נותן טעם לפגם; and even so the Sages forbade cooking in it לכתחלה, גזירה אטו בת יומא — whether the wall absorbed prohibited food and one wishes to cook permitted food in it, or it absorbed milk and one wishes to cook meat in it, or the reverse.
3	The two limits of the spoiling	י״א: the pot is deemed spoiled only if it was well rinsed and all the forbidden fat stuck to it is gone; if the prohibited matter remained בעין, waiting does not spoil it. Rama: (a) if there is sixty against what is stuck alone, everything is permitted, for what is in the wall is already spoiled and needs no nullification; (b) י״א that with sharp foods this rule is not said — a dish mainly of vinegar, spices or other sharp things cooked in a prohibited pot that is not בת יומא is forbidden, but a dish is not called sharp for a little spice in it, וכן נוהגין; (c) conversely, if it was the prohibited food that was sharp, and twenty-four hours later a non-sharp permitted food was cooked in it — that is permitted.
4	בשר בחלב and the count reset	A pot absorbed with meat and milk in which water was heated before one night had passed: it counts as though the prohibited food had cooked in it afresh, and the twenty-four hours are counted from the hour the water was heated — which is not so for other prohibitions.
5	A small prohibition in a large vessel	A small amount of prohibited matter absorbed into a vessel not used with so little permitted food that it could give taste to it — a large pot, a barrel: it may be used לכתחלה even if it is בן יומו, since it is impossible to come to any giving of taste. But a vessel used with a small quantity, like a bowl, is forbidden: one does not nullify a prohibition לכתחלה, even a small one, even an absorbed one.
6	The presumption about their vessels	סתם כלי עובד כוכבים are presumed not בני יומן; therefore if one transgressed and used them before kashering, the dish is permitted. Rama: but water heated in their vessel in order to knead bread may not be used for kneading — for that it is still לכתחלה, the benefit not having begun; whereas something the non-Jew made for his own purposes is permitted לכתחלה, מקרי דיעבד. Even so it is forbidden to tell him cook me vegetables in your pot, for whoever says “cook for me” is as if he cooked with his own hands; through apothecaries or other craftsmen אפשר that it is permitted, since they keep clean vessels for their trade; and a בעל נפש will take care, for these things lead to purity and cleanliness.
7	The presumption about ours	Just as their vessels are presumed not בני יומן, so too our own vessels are presumed not בני יומן.
8	A vessel mixed among others	A vessel forbidden through absorption that became mixed among others and is no longer recognisable is nullified by the majority.
9	Vessels left at a non-Jew's	One should avoid leaving meal vessels in a non-Jew's house, lest he use them. Rama: even when given to a craftsman for repair one must put a mark on them; if one failed to, they require הגעלה when taken back — and only if they stayed a while, that is about half a day, for a short while is no concern. All this when one wishes to use them the same day they were given, where there is only one doubt; but if they were not taken back until after a delay, or waited twenty-four hours with the Jew, we incline to leniency. Taken back the same day and used without הגעלה, some forbid the dish as with a vessel that is certainly בן יומו; and where there is need one may be lenient בדיעבד. לכתחלה one should be careful in every case, even with the non-Jewish servants of a Jewish household.
10	Bowls sent out with food	Bowls a Jew sent to a non-Jew with food and which stayed there: if the food he sent is still recognisable in them, they are permitted; if not, they are forbidden — where dishes are customarily washed in hot water, lest they were washed together with a prohibited vessel.
11	Buying vessels said to be new	Meal vessels in a non-Jew's hand, who מסיח לפי תומו says they are new, and it appears to be as he says: it is permitted to buy them from him. Rama: some are stricter and hold him not to be believed — one should take vessels from a non-Jew only when he sells many vessels and one buys a vessel among the others, and such is the custom לכתחלה; but in a pressing situation, such as a guest at a non-Jew's who has no vessels, we follow the first opinion, and that is the main ruling.
12	Bowls from overseas	יש מי שאומר: bowls that come from overseas, hollowed, greenish or reddish, may never be used with hot food, because they are not new — non-Jews use them and it does not show.

12. Final flashcard

Question	Reflex answer	Source
A prohibited taste that spoils the dish?	It does not forbid — that is the opening sentence	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:א
A prohibited pot two days old?	נותן טעם לפגם — but forbidden לכתחלה	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
From when are the twenty-four hours counted?	From the cooking of the prohibited food in the vessel	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
A badly washed pot with visible forbidden fat?	Waiting spoiled nothing: the matter is בעין	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ג
A dish mainly of vinegar in that pot?	Forbidden: with a חריף there is no נותן טעם לפגם	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג
An ordinary dish with a little spice?	Not a sharp dish — permitted, וכן נוהגין	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ג
Water heated in a בשר בחלב pot of that day?	The twenty-four hour count starts from there	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ד ; ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב
A vessel whose history is unknown?	Presumed not בן יומו — theirs and ours alike	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו-ז
Telling a non-Jew to cook for you in his pot?	Forbidden: it is as if you cooked with your own hands	שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
Vessels left half a day at a non-Jew's?	הגעלה — unless they are taken back only after a delay	רמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:ט
A non-Jew who says his vessels are new?	The Mehaber believes him; the Rama, only under pressure	שו״ע ורמ״א יו״ד קכ״ב:י״א

⚖ The reflex in 3 questions

Time? Less than twenty-four hours since the prohibited food cooked → nothing to be done. More than twenty-four hours → the taste is פגום.
What could cancel it? Prohibited matter left בעין on the wall, or a sharp food in the pot. Either one, and the spoiling no longer counts.
Which storey are you on? לכתחלה, the decree stands and one kashers. בדיעבד — the dish is already cooked, the vessel's history unknown — the spoiling and the presumption suffice.

For halacha le-ma'aseh, consult your Rav.

🎓 Recap of the study path

Level	Content	What you gain
🌱 Level 1 — Basics	The text of the 12 seifim, translation, step-by-step explanation	Overall understanding
⚡ Level 2 — Lamdan	The definition of פגם — by nature or by time, the decree אטו בת יומא, matter left בעין, the דבר חריף and the ספק ספיקא of seif 6	In-depth study
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis	Three master grids, golden rules, mnemonic, pitfalls, recap of the seifim	Practical mastery + review
📜 Level 4 — Halacha le-ma'aseh	The practical ruling according to the ש״ך, the ט״ז, the פתחי תשובה and the poskim	Contemporary application

💡 Suggested next steps:

Reread Siman קכ״ב in the original Shulchan Aruch with the ש״ך and the ט״ז
Study the neighbouring simanim: 121 (kashering vessels bought from a non-Jew), 123 — and above all Siman 103, where נותן טעם לפגם in foods is treated at length, as the Shach points out in his very first ס״ק
Go back over Simanim 95 and 96 on דברים חריפים, to which the Rama refers twice in seif 3, and Siman 99 for the debate over seif 5
See Simanim 118, 136 and 137, to which seifim 9 and 11 refer for vessels entrusted or purchased
Discuss personal cases with a Rav — halacha le-ma'aseh is decided with a Rav

📖 Sources of this siman on Sefaria:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
סימן קכ״ב · Level 3 — Synthesis / Review · דין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים
daattorah.com