✦ ❖ ✦

DAAT · LEVEL 2 — LAMDAN

Siman 93 — Lamdan Level: what becomes of a taste absorbed in a wall

The pot in which meat was cooked — study and pilpul

סימן צ״ג

בן יומו ונותן טעם, נותן טעם לפגם, לשער נגד כל הקדרה, דין הכיסוי, תתאה גבר

Study, pilpul, the shitos of the Rishonim and the Acharonim

⚡ For students and talmidei chachamim ⚡

✦ ❖ ✦

Pilpul and in-depth study

Sugyos, sources, the underlying chakira, machlokos of Rishonim and Acharonim,
nafka minos for halachah and an examination of the shitos

Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן צ״ג — a single seif
with the nosei kelim: ש״ך (Sifsei Kohen), ט״ז (Turei Zahav), פרי מגדים, פתחי תשובה

Root of the sugya in Shas:
עבודה זרה ע״ה:–ע״ו. (vessels acquired from non-Jews, a taste that spoils, a vessel of the day) · פסחים ל'. (the earthenware vessel, of which the Torah testifies that it never leaves its defect) · פסחים ע״ו. (the lower one prevails)

Written and edited by:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT

📑 Table of contents

Opening the sugya — a pot in which meat was cooked, in which milk may not be cooked (a single seif)
The vessel of the day and the taste it gives — why it is this one that forbids, and what a still-live absorption is
A taste that spoils — after twenty-four hours, and the root of our practice: our vessels are not presumed to be of the day
The pot remains forbidden — even though the dish is permitted, why it does not become usable again
Measuring against the whole pot — the Shach's ס״ק א, and the case where the amount absorbed is known (צ״ד:ו', צ״ב:ה')
The earthenware vessel — the sugya of Pesachim 30 — the Tur wonders at the Baal HaIttur, the Taz (ס״ק א) vindicates him
The lid — the stringency of treating it as "of the day", the Maharshal against the Levush (ט״ז ס״ק ב)
Leniencies on the lid — the Shevus Yaakov (after two months) and the Bnei Chiya (Pischei Teshuvah)
The lower one prevails, between lid and pot — the peeling, and two pots that touched
Chakira and nafka mina for practice
Summary tables

📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — seif א'

קדירה שבשלו בה בשר לא יבשלו בה חלב. ובו סעיף אחד: קדירה שבשל בה בשר לא יבשל בה חלב ואם בישל בה בתוך מעת לעת אסור בנותן טעם (וצריך לשער נגד כל הקדירה) אבל אם שהה מעת לעת קודם שבישל בה הוי ליה נותן טעם לפגם ומותר התבשיל אבל הקדרה אסורה לבשל בה לא בשר ולא חלב: הגה אבל שאר דברים מותר (ריב"ש סימן קכ"ו בשם סמ"ק ובהגמי"י פ"ו) ודין כסוי קדרה כדין קדירה עצמה (ד"ע ואו"ה) ויש מחמירים בכיסוי לומר דאע"פ שאינו בן יומו דינו כאילו היה בן יומו (בהגהות ש"ד בשם קובץ) וכן נוהגין בקצת מקומות וכן אני נוהג מפני המנהג והוא חומרא בלא טעם (ד"ע) ומכל מקום במקום שיש שום צד להתיר בלאו הכי או שהוא לצורך שבת או הפסד יש להתיר אם אין הכיסוי בן יומו כמו בקדירה עצמה ואם לקחו כיסוי רותח מקדירה של בשר ונתנו אותו על קדירה של חלב אם שניהם חמים שניהם אסורים אם יש מאכל בקדירה של בשר וחלב ואם הכיסוי צונן והקדירה חמה נמי שניהם אסורים אם התחיל להזיע תחת הכיסוי דתתאה גבר (או"ה) ואם הכיסוי חם והקדירה צוננת הכל שרי (שם) רק המאכל צריך קליפה (לדעת הגהת ש"ד ולא כאו"ה שם) אם אפשר לקלפו ואם לאו הכל שרי ואם לא היה מאכל בקדירה הכל שרי דהוי כשתי קדירות שנגעו זו בזו (הכל ד"ע לסברת הארוך):

1. Opening the sugya — a pot in which meat was cooked

The foundation — what was absorbed returns and is released at the next cooking

The whole siman rests on one physical fact and on what halachah draws from it. A pot in which meat has been cooked has absorbed the taste of that meat into its wall. If milk is then cooked in it, that taste comes back out of the wall into the milk: one finds oneself, without intending it, cooking meat with milk. Hence the prohibition from the outset — לא יבשלו בה חלב (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א).

Everything else in the siman then turns on a single question: in what state is that absorbed taste? If it is still live and good, it forbids; if time has spoiled it, it no longer forbids the dish. That is the whole dividing line between a vessel of the day, בן יומו, and one that is no longer so, אינו בן יומו (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א).

A single seif, and considerable depth. The siman has but one seif — ובו סעיף אחד (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג, heading) — and yet several of the sharpest foundations of all the laws of mixtures are gathered in it: the definition of a taste that spoils, whose root is in עבודה זרה ע״ה:–ע״ו.; the principle on which our practice rests, that vessels are not presumed to be of the day; the separation between the fate of the dish and that of the vessel; the measure of nullification; and the sugya of the earthenware vessel in פסחים ל'. A short siman can require a long study.

The order of the rulings within the seif. (a) A meat pot — milk may not be cooked in it, from the outset. (b) It was cooked in within twenty-four hours — the dish is forbidden by the taste given. (c) Twenty-four hours passed before the cooking — this is a taste that spoils, and the dish is permitted. (d) Even so the pot remains forbidden: אבל הקדרה אסורה לבשל בה לא בשר ולא חלב (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א). Then, in the Rama's gloss: other foods remain permitted in it; the lid follows the pot; the stringency of treating it as "of the day", and the cases in which that stringency yields.

2. The vessel of the day and the taste it gives — a still-live absorption

This is the gateway to the whole siman: what is a vessel "of the day", and why is it precisely that one which forbids?

The foundation — a vessel of the day forbids through the taste it gives.
A vessel that is בן יומו — in which meat was cooked less than twenty-four hours ago — carries in its wall a taste still live, and good. When milk is cooked in it, the wall gives that meat taste back to the milk in an amount sufficient to be perceived, and the dish is forbidden by strict law, since a real taste of meat has mingled with the milk. This is what the Mechaber says: אסור בנותן טעם (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א).

Chakira — the absorption of a taste, or the absorption of substance? What, then, is this "absorbed taste" that returns and is released? Is it a fine substance of meat with which the wall has become impregnated, or only a taste, with no body? The consequence is large: if it is substance, the principle that an earthenware vessel never leaves its defect applies to it fully; if it is taste alone, it is far more readily drawn out by scalding. The Pischei Teshuvah poses exactly this distinction in the name of the Chavos Yair: שיש חילוק בין בליעת טעם הדבר לבליעת ממשו (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ה).

The source of the ruling in Shas. The root of the notion of a vessel of the day is in עבודה זרה ע״ה:–ע״ו., concerning vessels acquired from non-Jews, where it is taught that one used with boiling water requires scalding; the gemara there examines what a vessel of the day forbids and what becomes of one that is no longer so. It is from there that the Mechaber transposes to our siman: within twenty-four hours, a taste that is perceived; after that time, a taste that spoils.

3. A taste that spoils — after twenty-four hours

The Mechaber's words (end of seif א')

“ אבל אם שהה מעת לעת קודם שבישל בה הוי ליה נותן טעם לפגם ומותר התבשיל אבל הקדרה אסורה ” (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

That is: once twenty-four hours have passed over the absorbed taste, that taste has spoiled; what the wall gives to the milk is then a taste that spoils, and the received rule is that such a taste does not render forbidden (חולין צ״ח: ; עבודה זרה ס״ז:). The dish, accordingly, is permitted after the fact.

The foundation — a taste that spoils does not render forbidden.
An absorbed taste over which twenty-four hours have passed is no longer a taste of quality: it is spoiled. And the received rule is that such a taste is permitted, because the Torah forbade only a taste that improves. There is indeed, here, a mixture of meat and milk — but since what the pot releases is spoiled, there is no Torah prohibition, and the dish is permitted after the fact.

The root of our practice — our vessels are not presumed to be "of the day".
It is on this rule that our whole practice concerning vessels rests: we presume that twenty-four hours have passed since they were last used, so that what they release is spoiled and does not forbid after the fact. The Shulchan Aruch writes it elsewhere in so many words: “ כשם שסתם כליהם של עובדי כוכבים אינם בני יומן כך סתם כלים שלנו בחזקת שאינן בני יומן ” (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה קכ״ב:ז). But this holds only after the fact: from the outset one does not set up such a situation — and that is why the pot itself remains forbidden.

A point of wording — "the dish is permitted", and not the pot. The Mechaber weighs his words: it is the dish that is permitted, the pot that remains forbidden. The permission of a taste that spoils bears only on the outcome — the dish already cooked — because after the fact a spoiled release does not forbid. But the vessel itself does not thereby become permitted: in cooking meat and then milk in one vessel one has done precisely what was not to be done, and from the outset one does not set up a release of meat into milk. From here one passes to the fate of the pot.

4. The pot remains forbidden — even though the dish is permitted

Answer — one does not nullify a prohibition from the outset, and one does not set up a meat-and-milk situation. Two foundations join here:

(a) It is forbidden to nullify a prohibition from the outset, even though after the fact the spoiled taste would leave the thing permitted: “ אין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה ” (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ט:ה).
(b) We are concerned that on some occasion one will cook in a vessel that is of the day, or in a quantity in which the taste would not have spoiled, without noticing. The prohibition therefore falls on the vessel itself, and for both kinds at once: אבל הקדרה אסורה לבשל בה לא בשר ולא חלב (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א).

The pot is thus forbidden from the outset, for meat as for milk, even after twenty-four hours have passed.

Other foods remain permitted (the Rama's gloss, in the name of the Rivash and the Semak) — but the Shach flags a tension. The prohibition bears only on cooking the other kind in this pot, since that is what joins the two; cooking neutral foods in it is permitted: “ אבל שאר דברים שאינן לא של בשר ולא של חלב כגון ירקות ודגים וכה"ג מותר לבשל בה אפילו לכתחלה ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ג). The Shach immediately sets against this what the Rama writes elsewhere: “ ולקמן סי' צ"ד ס"ה כתב הרב דנוהגין לאסור הכלי שאינו בן יומו אפילו לשאר דברים ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ג) — and he argues a fortiori: if one forbids where only a spoon of the day was dipped in, how much more so here, where meat was actually cooked. His resolution is that our siman stated matters as they stand in strict law, and he refers to what he writes at siman 94. We report, and we do not rule.

Restoring the pot to use. Forbidden from the outset does not mean forbidden forever: scalding restores it to use, and one may then cook in it whichever kind one wishes. The Pischei Teshuvah specifies, for a metal pot that has become forbidden, that it does not suffice to fill it with water and bring it to a boil — the outer face would not be treated — but that it must be immersed whole in a larger vessel: “ אם היא של מתכות ובא להגעילה לא מהני כשימלאנה מים וירתיחנה דא"כ צד החיצון לא נגעל אלא צריך להכניסה כולה ליורה ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ב ס״ק ג), referring for this to the Magen Avraham (או״ח סי' תנ״ב ס״ק י״א). And in practice — ask your Rav.

5. Measuring against the whole pot — the Shach's ס״ק א

Here is the Rama's addition, "and one must measure against the whole pot", for which the Shach, at his ס״ק א, is the explanatory pillar.

The Rama's words

“ וצריך לשער נגד כל הקדירה ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

That is: when milk has been cooked in a meat pot that is of the day, and one comes to nullify in sixty what the pot released, one does not measure against the amount absorbed — whose volume we do not know — but against the entire body of the pot.

The chakira — whose "taste" is spoken of, and against what is it measured? The Mechaber's words, אסור בנותן טעם (שולחן ערוך יורה דעה צ״ג:א), suggest that we rely on the taste as actually perceived, and the Shach says so explicitly: “ יטעימנו קפילא אם יש בו טעם ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א) — a cook is given it to taste. But the Rama, true to his position, does not rely on a non-Jew's tasting. If, then, we do not taste, how shall we know whether a taste has been given?

The Shach's answer (ס״ק א) — and his second route. The Shach joins the two ends himself: “ דאין נוהגים לסמוך אטעימת עובד כוכבים לכך כתב וצריך לשער נגד כל הקדרה ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א). Since we do not rely on tasting, and we do not know what the pot absorbed, we measure stringently against its whole body: the entire wall is treated as though it had released everything into the dish. The Shach first draws the consequence that this is a measure one does not reach, and that the dish is therefore forbidden; then he offers a second route, which sometimes makes it workable — “ משכחת לפעמים שיהא רוחב הקדרה גדול כ"כ שיחזיק מים שיהיו ששים נגדו כגון שנחושתה דק ורחבה גדול ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א): a thin wall and a wide span can hold sixty times the body of the pot. It is this second route that the Pischei Teshuvah takes up, referring to the Merkeves HaMishneh, who establishes it by calculation (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א).

Nafka mina — when the amount absorbed is known. The Shach concludes that all this stringency applies only to an old pot, of which we do not know what it has drunk: “ הא דצריך לשער נגד כל הקדרה היינו בקדרה ישנה דלא ידעינן כמה בלע אבל אי ידעינן כמה בלע א"צ לשער אלא כנגד הבלוע בו ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א). He refers for this to two precise places — צ״ב:ה' in the gloss, and צ״ד:ו' — where the measures of what is absorbed are set out.

The root of the distinction — and a clarification in ס״ק ב. The whole stringency of "measuring against the whole pot" does not arise from the substance of the rule, but from our ignorance of the quantity. Where one knows how much was absorbed, one returns to the ordinary rule and measures against what was absorbed alone: it is therefore a rule of estimation adopted stringently, not a substantive rule about nullification itself — which is exactly why the Shach ties it to simanim 92 and 94. One might further suppose that it applies only to earthenware, which absorbs more; the Shach writes the opposite at his ס״ק ב: “ ולקמן סי' צ"ח יתבאר דאין חילוק בין קדרה של מתכת או של חרס לעולה צריך לשער נגד כל הקדרה ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ב).

6. The earthenware vessel — the sugya of Pesachim 30 (the Taz's ס״ק א)

Here the Taz takes up the view of the Baal HaIttur as brought by the Tur — at which the Tur himself wonders — and sets out to vindicate it from the sugya of the earthenware vessel.

The Baal HaIttur's position, the Tur's astonishment, and the difficulty the Taz raises in turn. The Taz opens by setting out the state of the question: “ הטור כתב בשם בעל העיטור ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א) — if milk was cooked in a meat pot that was of the day and there was sixty, one may afterwards cook in it whichever kind one wishes, since what was absorbed has been nullified. And the Tur, the Taz adds, wonders at him: ותמה עליו (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א). The Taz then raises his own difficulty on the sugya of the earthenware vessel: since it is regarding consecrated food that the Torah prescribed breaking, one would rather infer that ordinary food is treated more lightly — “ וקשה אדרבה נימא מדגלי רחמנא גבי קדשים דאמרינן ישבר ש"מ דחולין הוה קיל מזה ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א). Tosafos, he notes, raised a different difficulty and answered it; their answer does not settle this one.

The Taz comes to vindicate the Baal HaIttur. The Taz announces his purpose in so many words: “ ונראה לתרץ דעת בעל העיטור על נכון ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א). His point of support is what the Torah testifies of the earthenware vessel — “ התורה העידה על כלי חרס שאינו יוצא מידי דופיו לעולם ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א, פסחים ל'.) —, which Rashi explains thus: since it gives off liquid through its outer wall, it has certainly absorbed, and it will never again release all that it drank. And it is precisely from the foregoing difficulty, says the Taz, that the Baal HaIttur derived his position: “ דבחרס בחולין אה"נ דמן התורה מותר בהגעלה אלא דוקא בקדשים אמרה תורה אינו יוצא מידי דופיו ורבנן אמרו דגם בחולין אמרינן כן ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א). Everything then falls into place: for the Baal HaIttur the meat taste was already driven out by the scalding that the cooking of the milk constituted; only a rabbinic prohibition remains; and since maintaining it would render the vessel permanently unusable — יבוא לידי פסידא דא"א להשתמש בו עוד (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א) — we are in the case of "after the fact", where the Sages did not decree over a spoiled taste. The Taz concludes: כנ"ל נכון דעת בה"ע (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק א), and he points to siman 121, where the Tur reports that the Baal HaIttur is likewise lenient with an earthenware vessel that is not of the day, the prohibition there being only rabbinic.

Chakira — absorbed substance or absorbed taste (Pischei Teshuvah ס״ק ה). The sugya of the earthenware vessel sharpens the question raised above: "it never leaves its defect" suggests that what remains in the wall is a substance, and not a taste alone. The Pischei Teshuvah reports that the Chavos Yair, precisely, declines the Taz's reasoning on this point and grounds the matter on the distinction between the two: שיש חילוק בין בליעת טעם הדבר לבליעת ממשו (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ה). What a saturated vessel no longer absorbs is the body of the thing; its taste it continues to take in.

The Pischei Teshuvah (ס״ק ב) — the Chasam Sofer. On these very words of the Mechaber, the Pischei Teshuvah points to a responsum that takes up the explanation of the Baal HaIttur's words: “ ועיין בתשובת חתם סופר סימן פ"ד מ"ש הוא ז"ל בביאור דברי העיטור בזה ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ב). The discussion of the Baal HaIttur's position thus remains open among the Acharonim; the letter of the seif, for its part, does not move, and the pot remains forbidden. And in practice — ask your Rav.

7. The lid — the stringency of treating it as "of the day"

The Rama's words (gloss)

“ ודין כסוי קדרה כדין קדירה עצמה ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

“ ויש מחמירים בכיסוי לומר דאע"פ שאינו בן יומו דינו כאילו היה בן יומו ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

“ וכן נוהגין בקצת מקומות וכן אני נוהג מפני המנהג והוא חומרא בלא טעם ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

“ ומכל מקום במקום שיש שום צד להתיר בלאו הכי או שהוא לצורך שבת או הפסד יש להתיר אם אין הכיסוי בן יומו כמו בקדירה עצמה ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

The foundation — the lid follows the pot.
The כיסוי absorbs the steam rising from the boiling dish; its status is therefore that of a vessel in which one has cooked — the same as the pot's. Of the day, it forbids; after twenty-four hours, what it releases is spoiled. That is the substantive rule. It is upon it that the stringency of custom comes to rest: to treat the lid as "of the day" in every case, even when it is not.

Machlokes on the reason for this stringency (ט״ז ס״ק ב):

Position	What it holds of the stringency on the lid	Source
Maharshal (ים של שלמה, פרק כל הבשר סי' מ״ז)	The stringency applies only to lids that are narrow and hollow, which cannot be wiped properly: there is prohibited matter in substance there, and in such a case we do not say that a taste spoils. A wide lid, which the hand can clean, follows the pot once it is not of the day	ט״ז ס״ק ב
The Levush	This stringency has no place at all: the lid is like the pot in every respect, and it is not to be treated as "of the day"	ט״ז ס״ק ב

"A stringency without reason" — the Rama's wording, and what the two nosei kelim make of it. The Rama himself acknowledges that this stringency has no reason in strict law, and that he follows it only because of the custom: והוא חומרא בלא טעם (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א). Two consequences follow. (a) Where there is another ground to permit, or a need of Shabbos, or a loss, the lid that is not of the day is permitted, like the pot itself. (b) The Taz inclines to the Maharshal, whose position he quotes in his own terms — “ שעיקר החומרא דוקא באותן כיסויים שהן קצרים למעלה ויש בהם חלל וא"א לקנחם יפה מן הרתיחה שעולה לשם דכל שיש איסור בעין לא אמרינן ביה נותן טעם לפגם ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ב) — and then offers a workable measure: “ ונלע"ד לנהוג בזה שיש לשער אם יש בתבשיל ס' נגד מקום הקצר שבכיסוי ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ב). He further brings the Levush — “ גם רמ"י בלבוש כתב שאין לחומרא של כיסוי מקום כלל ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ב) — and closes with a rule of method: “ וכל מי שאומר סברות להחמיר בזה מה שלא נמצא בתלמוד ובפוסקים עליו הראייה ” (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ב). The Shach goes the same way — “ ומ"מ ודאי דאין להחמיר כ"כ בכיסוי ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ד) — and quotes the close of the Darkei Moshe, among the sharpest words in the siman: “ ואי איישר חילי אבטל המנהג כי הוא מנהג טעות ואין לו טעם לסמוך עליו ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ד). Those who do follow the stringency therefore acknowledge that it is an added precaution, and not the substance of the rule.

8. Leniencies on the lid — Shevus Yaakov and Bnei Chiya

Shevus Yaakov (Pischei Teshuvah ס״ק ג) — after two months. Even for one who follows the stringency of treating the lid as "of the day", if two months have passed without its being used, there is ground to permit: “ דאף המחמיר בכיסוי קדרה אעפ"י שאינו ב"י מ"מ אחר שני חדשים יש להתיר ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ג). The Pischei Teshuvah at once sets the limit of this leniency: “ ולכתחלה בכל איסורים אסור להשתמש בכלים אף שלא נשתמש בהם שנים הרבה ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ג), and he refers to what he writes at siman 122.

Bnei Chiya (Pischei Teshuvah ס״ק ד) — the dedicated lid and the plate set on top. The distinction turns on the vessel: the whole stringency of the lid bears only on one that is designated for that use. A milk plate set on a meat pot is permitted in all views once it is not of the day: “ דאף לדברי המחמירים דוקא כיסוי מיוחד לכך אבל אם נתן קערה של חלב על קדרה של בשר מותר לדברי הכל כשאינו בן יומו ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ד).

Nafka mina for practice. There are therefore, even for one who follows the stringency on the lid, several grounds of leniency: another ground to permit, a need of Shabbos or a loss (Rama); two months elapsed (Shevus Yaakov); a plate merely set on top, which is not a dedicated lid (Bnei Chiya). In all these, a lid or plate that is not of the day follows the pot. And in practice — ask your Rav.

Chavos Yair (סי' ק״א) and the Bach / Levush divergence (Pischei Teshuvah ס״ק ה). On the case where there is no food in the pot — the end of the gloss, examined below — the Taz writes at length, and the Pischei Teshuvah reports that the Chavos Yair joins him against the Bach and the Levush: “ שגם הוא ז"ל הסכים עם הט"ז ודלא כהב"ח והלבוש ” (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ה) — but not for the Taz's reason, he specifies: for the Chavos Yair the gemara indicates that a saturated vessel does not absorb the body of the thing at all, and the distinction to be drawn is that of taste and substance.

9. The lower one prevails, between lid and pot — and the peeling

The end of the gloss — a hot lid of one kind set on the pot of the other, whose foundation is the principle "the lower one prevails" (פסחים ע״ו., and see siman 91).

“ ואם לקחו כיסוי רותח מקדירה של בשר ונתנו אותו על קדירה של חלב אם שניהם חמים שניהם אסורים אם יש מאכל בקדירה של בשר וחלב ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

“ ואם הכיסוי צונן והקדירה חמה נמי שניהם אסורים אם התחיל להזיע תחת הכיסוי דתתאה גבר ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

“ ואם הכיסוי חם והקדירה צוננת הכל שרי… רק המאכל צריך קליפה… אם אפשר לקלפו ואם לאו הכל שרי ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

“ ואם לא היה מאכל בקדירה הכל שרי דהוי כשתי קדירות שנגעו זו בזו ” (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א)

The foundation — "the lower one prevails" and the degrees of heat.
The root of these rulings is the principle תתאה גבר (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א) — it is the lower one that prevails. Hence:

• Both hot, with food in the pot → שניהם אסורים (שם), each causing the other to absorb.
• Cold lid, hot pot that has begun to sweat beneath it → the lower one, which is hot, prevails → שניהם אסורים (שם).
• Hot lid, cold pot → the lower one, which is cold, prevails and lets in no more than the thickness of a peeling → all is permitted, and for the food a קליפה (שם) suffices.

The peeling — the measure of what the lower one lets through. When the hot lid is set on a cold pot, although the cold lower one prevails and does not absorb through its whole thickness, a little heat nonetheless reaches the surface of the food: hence the peeling, when it can be taken; and where it cannot, all is permitted, since there was only slight heat, of the thickness of a peeling. This is the ordinary rule of cold into hot and hot into cold. The Shach adds, for the case of a cold lid on a hot pot, a condition of degree: “ ונראה שצריך שתהא היד סולדת ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ה) — the hand must recoil from the steam, and for that degree he refers to siman 92.

No food in the pot — two pots that touched; and a צ״ע of the Shach. If there is no food at all in the pot and only the vessels touch, all is permitted: one vessel does not cause another to absorb without liquid. The Shulchan Aruch itself attributes this whole end of the gloss to the Rama's own view following the reasoning of the Issur veHeter HaArokh (רמ״א יורה דעה צ״ג:א — הכל ד״ע לסברת הארוך), and it is on this that the Taz writes at length, joined by the Chavos Yair against the Bach and the Levush (פתחי תשובה יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ה). The Shach, for his part, brings the Darkei Moshe in the name of the Arokh, who permits even the pot itself when it is wiped at the point of contact — “ ואפי' הקדרה עצמה שרי לכתחלה כשמקנחה או מדיחה למעלה במקום שנוגעת בכסוי ” (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ו) —, then the objection of the Hagahos Sha'arei Dura, and he stops on two words: וצ"ע במה שמתיר גם הקדרה (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ג ס״ק ו). We report, and we do not rule.

10. Chakira and nafka mina for practice

The overall chakira of the siman. What is an absorbed taste, and when does it forbid?

A vessel of the day — what is absorbed is live and its taste good → it gives taste, and forbids the dish.
A vessel no longer of the day — the taste has spoiled → the dish is permitted; it is on this that our practice rests, that our vessels are not presumed to be of the day.
The pot itself — forbidden from the outset although the dish is permitted; permitted for neutral foods, with the reservation the Shach flags in the name of siman 94; restored to use by scalding.
The measure of nullification — against the whole pot (ש״ך ס״ק א) when the amount absorbed is unknown; against what was absorbed alone when it is known (צ״ד:ו', צ״ב:ה').
The lid — it follows the pot; the stringency of treating it as "of the day" is a stringency without reason, which a need of Shabbos or a loss causes to yield; then "the lower one prevails" and the peeling.

Nafka mina for practice (along the line that emerges among the Acharonim):

A meat pot that is of the day → milk is not cooked in it, and the dish is forbidden, since one measures against the whole pot (ש״ך ס״ק א).
Twenty-four hours elapsed → the dish is permitted after the fact; but cooking that way from the outset remains forbidden.
The pot, no longer of the day, remains permitted for neutral foods (ריב״ש קכ״ו) — the Shach flagging, however, the practice reported at siman 94 of forbidding even that (ש״ך ס״ק ג).
A lid no longer of the day — the practice is to be stringent; one is lenient for a need of Shabbos or a loss, after two months (Shevus Yaakov), and for a plate merely set on top (Bnei Chiya).
Lid and pot, hot and cold — the matter is judged by "the lower one prevails"; hot on cold → a peeling; no food → two pots that touched, permitted.

And in practice — ask your Rav.

11. Summary tables

Table — the state of the pot and the ruling

Table — the central machlokos of the siman

Table — the sources of the sugya

State of the pot	What follows	Source
Meat pot — cooking milk in it from the outset	Forbidden	Mechaber ס״א
Of the day (within twenty-four hours)	Forbidden by the taste given; one measures against the whole pot	Mechaber ס״א ; ש״ך ס״ק א
No longer of the day (twenty-four hours elapsed)	A taste that spoils → the dish is permitted	Mechaber ס״א
The pot itself (no longer of the day)	Forbidden from the outset for meat as for milk; restored to use by scalding	Mechaber ס״א ; פ״ת ס״ק ג (סי' צ״ב)
Neutral foods in the pot	Permitted — with the reservation the Shach reports in the name of siman 94	רמ״א ; ריב״ש קכ״ו ; ש״ך ס״ק ג
The amount absorbed is known	One measures against what was absorbed alone, not against the whole pot	ש״ך ס״ק א (צ״ד:ו', צ״ב:ה')
The lid of the pot	It follows the pot; some are stringent to treat it as "of the day"	רמ״א ; ט״ז ס״ק ב
Hot lid on a cold pot	Permitted; the food requires a peeling, if it is possible	רמ״א (תתאה גבר)
No food in the pot	Permitted — like two pots that touched	רמ״א (ד״ע לסברת הארוך) ; ט״ז

Subject	First position	Second position
Against what one measures, for a pot of the day	The Mechaber — by the taste given, which a cook is asked to taste (ש״ך ס״ק א)	The Rama and the Shach — against the whole pot, tasting not being relied upon
After a cooking in which there was sixty, cooking the other kind	The Baal HaIttur — permitted, what was absorbed having been nullified; and the Taz comes to vindicate his position (ט״ז ס״ק א)	The Tur — wonders at him; the letter of the seif keeps the pot forbidden
The stringency on the lid	Maharshal — only for narrow, hollow lids (prohibited matter in substance)	The Levush — this stringency has no place; and both the Taz and the Shach incline against adding to it
A lid no longer of the day, after a long time	The practice of being stringent in every case	Shevus Yaakov — after two months there is ground to permit (פ״ת ס״ק ג)
The stringency on the lid — for which vessel	For the pot's dedicated lid	Bnei Chiya — a plate set on top is permitted in all views (פ״ת ס״ק ד)

Gemara: עבודה זרה ע״ה:–ע״ו. (vessels acquired from non-Jews, a taste that spoils, a vessel of the day) · עבודה זרה ס״ז:–ס״ח. (a taste that spoils is permitted) · חולין צ״ז:–צ״ח. (taste is as substance, nullification in sixty) · פסחים ל'. (the earthenware vessel, quoted by the Taz) · פסחים ע״ו. (כיצד צולין — the lower one prevails)

Acharonim: בית יוסף · רמ״א (ובדרכי משה) · ש״ך · ט״ז · ב״ח · לבוש · מהרש״ל (ים של שלמה, כל הבשר מ״ז) · פרי מגדים · פתחי תשובה · חתם סופר (יו״ד פ״ד) · שבות יעקב · בני חייא · חוות יאיר (סי' ק״א) · מגן אברהם (סי' תנ״ב) · מרכבת המשנה