A first approach to Siman 95: the 7 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. May fish or an egg cooked in a meat pot be eaten with cheese? The role of noten taam bar noten taam de-hetera (the taste of a permitted taste), the machloket Mehaber / Rama (Sephardi / Ashkenazi), meat and dairy dishes washed together in the same water, the davar charif (a pungent food), the ash (אפר) and proximity in storage.
Topic: Fish and eggs cooked in a meat pot — the taste of a permitted taste, washing-up, davar charif Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן צ״ה
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 7 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why this siman follows the laws of meat and milk
4.The washing-up: the table of dishes washed together
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.Noten taam bar noten taam: why the taste of a permitted taste stays permitted
8.Modern practical cases: fish in a meat pot, washing-up, proximity
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 7 seifim
Siman 95 directly continues the laws of בשר בחלב (meat and milk). After the simanim on a mixture in the pot (92) and on assessing the sixty (98), the Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) deals here with a very concrete case: may a neutral food — fish, eggs — cooked in a meat pot afterwards be consumed with dairy? Everything turns on one central principle: noten taam bar noten taam de-hetera (the "taste of a permitted taste"). The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) reflecting Ashkenazi practice — often more stringent le-khatchila. It is here that the great Sephardi / Ashkenazi machloket takes shape. Let us explore the seifim by groups.
Group A — Nat bar nat and the machloket Mehaber / Rama (seifim 1-2)
Fish cooked or fried in a meat pot that is well washed (רחוצה יפה), with no fat adhering (שומן דבוק) → it is permitted to eat them with kutach (a dairy food / a milk sauce), for it is a noten taam bar noten taam de-hetera (a "taste of a permitted taste"). But if it was not well washed: if there is a substance (ממש) of fat on the surface of the pot at more than one sixtieth of the fish → it is forbidden to eat them with kutach.
The central idea: the taste of the meat entered the pot (1st taste), then passed from the pot into the fish (2nd taste). At each stage that taste was permitted: the fish is not meat, we merely have a faint taste (קלוש) of an already-permitted taste. Such a nat bar nat de-hetera does not make the fish "meaty." The only reservation: no real fat (ממש, substance, not merely taste) must remain adhering — for then it is no longer a mere taste, and one needs sixty against that fat.
Seif 2 — The egg; the machloket Mehaber / Rama; the davar charif
An egg cooked in water in a dairy pot → it is permitted to put it into the poultry (the meat) even le-khatchila (a priori). But if it was cooked in a pot WITH meat, even to the depth of a peel (קליפה) → it is forbidden to eat it with kutach. Gloss of the Rama: some are stringent with frying and cooking (צלייה ובישול) to forbid nat bar nat (Rivan in the name of Rashi; Mordechai, Or Zarua); the practice is to forbid le-khatchila but to permit be-di'avad (after the fact) in any case. And this is only to eat them with milk or the meat itself; but to put them in THEIR vessel (of the same kind) is permitted le-khatchila, and so is the custom. Likewise, if they were not cooked or fried but merely "placed" (עלו) in a meat vessel → permitted to eat them with milk itself, and vice versa. Likewise, if the vessel in which they were cooked/fried was לפגם, not ben yomo (not used within 24 hours) → the custom permits le-khatchila to eat them with the other kind. All this when the food is NOT a davar charif; but if it is charif (pungent) — e.g. pungent things cooked in a meat vessel even not ben yomo, or spices pounded in a meat mortar (מדוך) — then eating it with milk is forbidden even be-di'avad, until there is 60 against the absorbed meat. Nevertheless, a food is not "charif" because of a little spice: only if it is entirely pungent (רובו ככולו). See Siman 96.
The pivot of the siman: here the great Sephardi / Ashkenazi machloket is born. The Mehaber (Sephardi) permits nat bar nat even to eat with the other kind. The Rama (Ashkenazi) reports the "yesh machmirin" who forbid le-khatchila with frying/cooking — while still permitting be-di'avad, permitting the use of their own vessels, and permitting when it is only alu (without cooking) or when the vessel was not ben yomo. And the davar charif changes everything: a pungent food carries the taste like substance and forbids even be-di'avad.
Group B — The washing-up: dishes washed together (seif 3)
Meat dishes washed in a dairy boiler (יורה) in hot water that is yad soledet (in which the hand recoils), even if both are ben yomo → permitted, for it is nat bar nat de-hetera — provided one can say "I am certain: no fat was adhering to them" (ברי לי). If fat was adhering → one needs sixty in the water against the substance of fat on the surface of the dish. Gloss of the Rama: some forbid even with no fat adhering (the Tur in the name of many Rishonim), unless one of the vessels is not ben yomo — then all the vessels are permitted, and the water is treated as forbidden le-khatchila; but if both are ben yomo and washed TOGETHER in a keli rishon → all is forbidden, and so is the custom, one does not deviate from it. And only if they were washed together and in a keli rishon; but if they were washed one after the other, or in a keli sheni even together → all is permitted. And if one poured (iruy) from a meat keli rishon onto a dairy vessel → it is like a keli rishon, forbidden if ben yomo; but if one poured neutral boiling water (neither meat nor dairy) onto meat and dairy vessels together, even with fat adhering → all is permitted, for iruy is not quite a keli rishon that would make the vessels absorb from one another. And if one finds a dairy dish among the meat dishes, one does not fear that they were washed together in a forbidding way.
The central case of the washing-up: two vessels, one meat and one dairy, washed in the same boiling water. For the Mehaber, this is nat bar nat (the meat taste passes to the dish, from the dish to the water, from the water to the dairy dish — three times a permitted taste) → permitted, if there is no fat. For the Rama, the custom forbids whenever both are ben yomo + washed together + in a keli rishon. Three escape valves: one not ben yomo, or washed one after the other, or in a keli sheni → permitted. And iruy (pouring) counts as a keli rishon, unless the water is neutral.
It seems to me (יראה לי) that if one put ash (אפר) in the hot water of the boiler before placing the vessels in it, even with fat adhering → permitted, for through the ash it is a noten taam lifgam (a spoiled / impaired taste).
Why the ash saves: a taste of a prohibition that spoils rather than improves (noten taam lifgam) does not forbid. The ash impairs the taste of the fat to the point that it becomes useless — like a modern soda-based detergent. The Mehaber introduces this seif with a humble "יראה לי" ("it seems to me"), the mark of a personal reasoning; the nossei kelim (Taz, Pithei Teshuva) discuss its scope.
One does not place a vessel containing kutach (a dairy food) next to a vessel containing salt; but it is permitted to place it next to a vessel containing vinegar (חומץ). Gloss of the Rama: only if the vessels are uncovered; and even so, if one transgressed and placed them together → permitted, one does not fear that it fell into the salt.
Salt vs vinegar:salt is powerful; a drop of dairy that fell into it would be preserved and its taste would not be nullified — hence the ban on storing them side by side. Vinegar, by contrast, is liquid and abundant: a drop of dairy that fell into it would be nullified within sixty → permitted. But all this only when uncovered; and after the fact (be-di'avad), there is no concern at all.
It is permitted to place in a chest (תיבה) a meat jug (כד) next to a dairy jug. Gloss of the Rama: some are stringent le-khatchila (Hagahot Ashri in the name of the Or Zarua); it is good to be careful a priori where it is not necessary.
Why it is permitted: these are closed jugs / foods that do not escape; mere proximity, without contact or transfer, forbids nothing. The Mehaber therefore permits. The Rama, faithful to the Ashkenazi spirit of caution, reports those who are strict le-khatchila and advises refraining where there is no need.
Salt placed in a meat dish → it is permitted to put it in milk. Gloss of the Rama:one who is stringent in this too, a blessing upon him (תבא עליו ברכה), for some forbid le-khatchila (Tosafot, Sma"g, Or Zarua).
This last seif closes the "proximity" series: salt merely placed in a meat dish has not absorbed enough to transmit a meaty taste to the milk → the Mehaber permits. The Rama, without forbidding, praises the one who is careful ("a blessing upon him"): this is exactly the Ashkenazi sensibility of hiddur (refinement of practice) where the law already permits.
2. Context — where this siman fits
The preceding simanim dealt with the direct mixture of meat and milk (milk falling into the pot, assessing the sixty). Siman 95 turns to a more indirect but very frequent situation: a neutral food (fish, eggs), or dishes, that received only a taste of meat — and only in a relayed manner (through the pot, through the water). The question is no longer "how much sixty?" but "does the taste of a permitted taste forbid?", and "how far do the Ashkenazi practices tighten this leniency?".
The siman's major questions
Question
Where?
Typical answer
Fish in a well-washed meat pot
Seif 1
Nat bar nat de-hetera → permitted with dairy (except real fat)
Egg; the machloket Mehaber / Rama; the davar charif
Mehaber permits; Rama forbids if 2 ben yomo + together + keli rishon
The ash (אפר)
Seif 4
Noten taam lifgam → permitted even with fat
Proximity in storage
Seifim 5-7
Salt forbidden / vinegar permitted; jugs and salt permitted (some strict)
The transversal idea: everything is a matter of relayed taste and its strength. A taste twice permitted stays permitted (nat bar nat) — unless it becomes "substance" again (real fat, pungent food), or the Ashkenazi practice tightens the leniency wherever three strict conditions converge.
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 95, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing how taste is transmitted, relayed, and loses (or not) its force.
נותן טעם בר נותן טעם דהיתרא — The taste of a permitted taste: a taste transmitted twice (meat → pot → fish), and which was permitted at each stage, stays heter. The taste has become faint (קלוש) and was never forbidden. This is the heart of the siman (seifim 1, 2, 3). With an issur (prohibition), by contrast, several nat bar nat remain forbidden.
כותח — Kutach: a preparation made from whey (and by extension, a dairy food / a milk sauce). Throughout the siman, eating the fish or egg "with kutach" = consuming them with dairy.
עלו — "Alu" (placed): when the food was merely placed in contact while hot with the meat vessel, without cooking in it (e.g. hot fish set on a meat dish). This is lighter than cooking/frying: permitted even le-khatchila for the Rama (seif 2).
בן יומו — Ben yomo: a vessel used within the last 24 hours. Beyond that it is not ben yomo, and its absorbed taste is deemed לפגם (impaired). This is one of the three escape valves of seif 3.
דבר חריף — Davar charif: a pungent / sharp food (onion, garlic, spices pounded in a mortar…). It cancels the "lightness" of nat bar nat: it carries the taste like substance and forbids even be-di'avad up to 60 (seif 2). But a little spice is not enough: it must be charif rubo ke-kulo (mostly so).
נותן טעם לפגם — Noten taam lifgam: a taste that spoils rather than improves. It does not forbid. This is the basis of seif 4: the ash (אפר) impairs the taste of the fat to the point of making it harmless.
כלי ראשון / כלי שני / עירוי — First vessel / second vessel / pouring: a keli rishon (a pot on the fire) cooks deeply; a keli sheni (into which one decanted) is weaker; iruy (pouring from the rishon) is intermediate. Decisive for the washing-up (seif 3).
The connecting thread:ברי לי ("I am certain") in seif 3 — one permits the nat bar nat of the washing-up only if one can affirm that no real fat was adhering. As soon as there is substance (ממש) — fat or a pungent food — the "mere taste" logic collapses.
4. The washing-up — the table of dishes washed together
The whole of seif 3 boils down to a table. One crosses are both vessels ben yomo? with how were they washed?, and looks at whether the Mehaber and the Rama permit.
Iruy of meat (keli rishon) onto a dairy vessel, ben yomo
🔴 Forbidden (like a keli rishon)
Neutral water poured onto meat + dairy, even with fat
🟢 Permitted (iruy does not make them absorb from one another)
The logic in one sentence: for the Mehaber, as long as there is no real fat, the triple permitted taste suffices to permit everything. For the Rama, "full strength" must in addition not be assembled: two fresh vessels (ben yomo) + washed together + in the strongest vessel (keli rishon). Break one single of these three conditions, and even the Rama permits.
The point of iruy (seif 3): pouring from the cooking vessel is equivalent to a keli rishon — hence forbidden if the vessel is ben yomo. Except if the poured water is neutral (neither meat nor dairy): the iruy does not create a direct exchange between the vessels, and all stays permitted, even with fat.
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Aroukh is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. These are the reference nossei kelim in Yoreh De'ah (no Mishna Berurah here, which comments only on Orach Chaim).
The Shach (ש״ך) — abbreviation of שפתי כהן, Siftei Kohen, by Rabbi Shabtai haCohen (Lithuania, 17th century). It is the reference commentary on Yoreh De'ah, of great analytical depth.
The Taz (ט״ז) — abbreviation of טורי זהב, Turei Zahav, by Rabbi David haLevi Segal (Poland, 17th century). Often in dialogue — and sometimes in disagreement — with the Shach.
A key entry from the Taz
Taz s.k. 1 — The definition of nat bar nat de-hetera
The Taz spells out the definition of nat bar nat de-hetera: it is that the taste itself is permitted and faint (קלוש) — it has passed through a permitted intermediary and grown weak. But with a prohibition, even several nat bar nat remain forbidden: the "relaying" only lightens a taste if it was permitted from the outset.
A key entry from the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — "well washed": the presumption of absence of fat
The Shach explains the nuance of "רחוצה יפה" (well washed): a pot in which one cooked is presumed to have no fat adhering — this is the normal case (seif 1). Conversely, in the washing-up of the dishes (seif 3), one rather presumes that fat was adhering. Thus "well washed" serves to exclude the case where one knows for certain that it was not.
One sees the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they define the concepts (the faint, permitted taste of nat bar nat) and refine the presumptions (fat presumed absent after cooking, present after a meal). This is exactly what one deepens at the Lamdan level, with the debate over nat bar nat in the food vs the vessel (Pithei Teshuva s.k. 1).
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses reflecting Ashkenazi practice and refining the law in action. It is in this siman that the great Sephardi / Ashkenazi machloket crystallizes. Here are his most striking interventions.
On seif 2 — forbid le-khatchila, permit be-di'avad
Gloss of the Rama: ויש מחמירים בצלייה ובישול לאסור נותן טעם בר נותן טעם… והמנהג לאסור לכתחילה ובדיעבד מותר בכל ענין — "some are stringent with frying and cooking to forbid nat bar nat… the practice is to forbid le-khatchila and permit be-di'avad in any case". This is the siman's Ashkenazi signature: one does not allow oneself a priori what the Mehaber permits, but one does not declare it forbidden after the fact. And the use of their own vessels, the alu case, and the not ben yomo case remain permitted le-khatchila.
On seif 3 — forbidden if both ben yomo, together, in a keli rishon
Gloss of the Rama: ויש אוסרים אפילו אין שומן דבוק בהן… אבל אם שניהם בני יומן והדיח אותן ביחד בכלי ראשון הכל אסור והכי נוהגין ואין לשנות — "some forbid even with no fat adhering… but if both are ben yomo and washed together in a keli rishon, all is forbidden, and so is the custom, one does not deviate". The Rama adds the escape valves: one not ben yomo, washed one after the other, or in a keli sheni → permitted; and iruy of neutral water → permitted even with fat.
On seifim 5-7 — proximity: salt, jugs, salt from a dish
The Rama further refines: for kutach near salt (seif 5), the prohibition applies only when uncovered, and be-di'avad all is permitted; for the jugs (seif 6), some are strict le-khatchila and "it is good to be careful where it is not necessary"; and for salt from a meat dish placed in milk (seif 7), המחמיר גם בזה תבא עליו ברכה — "one who is stringent in this too, a blessing upon him".
The Rama carefully distinguishes the basic Sephardi law (the Mehaber, who broadly permits nat bar nat) from the more cautious Ashkenazi practice (forbid le-khatchila, permit be-di'avad) — while keeping targeted leniencies (a clean vessel, alu, not ben yomo, neutral water).
7. Noten taam bar noten taam — why the taste of a permitted taste stays permitted
Seif 1 — the conceptual heart of the siman — deserves a pause. Why does a meat taste in a fish cooked in a meat pot not make that fish "meaty"?
Everything rests on a chain of transmission. The taste travels from the meat → to the pot (1st taste) → to the fish (2nd taste). Two observations:
At no point was this taste forbidden: meat alone = permitted, an imbued pot = permitted, fish = permitted. We never crossed an issur.
The taste weakened at each relay (קלוש). In the end, in the fish, it is no more than a distant, permitted taste — which only "activates" as forbidden if one adds real milk… and even then, the Mehaber permits.
Case
Nat bar nat?
Result (Mehaber)
Fish cooked, well-washed pot (seif 1)
🟢 Yes, de-hetera
Permitted with dairy
Egg cooked in a dairy pot alone, then into the poultry (seif 2)
🟢 Yes, de-hetera
Permitted even le-khatchila
Egg cooked WITH meat (seif 2)
🔴 No (direct taste)
Forbidden with dairy
Washing-up: meat + dairy dishes, no fat (seif 3)
🟢 Yes (triple)
Permitted (Rama: under conditions)
Real fat (ממש) adhering
🔴 No (substance)
Needs 60 against the fat
Davar charif (pungent food)
🔴 No (carried like substance)
Forbidden even be-di'avad (60)
And the Taz (s.k. 1) adds the finishing touch: with a prohibition, even several nat bar nat remain forbidden. The "magic" of a taste of a taste works only because, at the start, everything was permitted — kosher meat is not a prohibition, just a kind incompatible with milk.
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — Fish cooked in a meat pan, to be eaten with cheese
One cooked fish in a clean (well-washed) meat pan, then wants to eat it with cheese (seif 1). For the Sephardi (Mehaber), this is nat bar nat de-hetera → permitted, as long as there is no real fat adhering. For the Ashkenazi (Rama, seif 2), if it is a cooking/frying, the practice is to forbid le-khatchila but to permit be-di'avad. For the practical halakha, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — Meat and dairy dishes washed in the same sink of boiling water
One washed together a meat plate and a dairy one in a basin of boiling water yad soledet (seif 3). For the Mehaber → permitted (if there is no fat). For the Rama → forbidden only if both are ben yomo + together + in a keli rishon; it is enough that one be not ben yomo, or that they were washed separately or in a keli sheni, to permit. For the practical halakha, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — A pungent food (onion, garlic) cooked in a meat vessel
One cooked a dish of onions (a davar charif) in a meat vessel, even not ben yomo, then wants to combine it with dairy (seif 2). Here the lightness of nat bar nat no longer applies: the pungency carries the taste like substance → forbidden even be-di'avad, up to 60 against the absorbed meat (see Siman 96). But a mere little spice does not make the dish "charif." For the practical halakha, consult your Rav.
The connecting thread of the three cases: before concluding, ask yourself three questions — is there only a relayed, permitted taste (nat bar nat)? does any real substance remain (fat, a pungent food)? and am I Sephardi (Mehaber) or Ashkenazi (Rama, stricter le-khatchila)? But the concrete decision always rests with the Rav, who knows the factual details.
9. Summary of Siman 95
The essence of Siman 95 in a few sentences:
Fish cooked in a well-washed meat pot is permitted with dairy: this is nat bar nat de-hetera — except real fat at more than 1/60 (seif 1).
An egg cooked in a dairy pot alone → permitted even le-khatchila; cooked with meat → forbidden with dairy (seif 2).
The machloket: the Mehaber (Sephardi) permits; the Rama (Ashkenazi) forbids le-khatchila, permits be-di'avad, permits the vessels, the alu case and the not-ben-yomo case (seif 2).
The davar charif (pungent food) forbids even be-di'avad (60 against the meat) — but only if it is charif rubo ke-kulo (seif 2, cf. Siman 96).
The washing-up: Mehaber permits (no fat, "ברי לי"); Rama forbids if 2 ben yomo + together + keli rishon (seif 3).
Iruy = keli rishon; but neutral water poured onto meat + dairy → permitted, even with fat (seif 3).
The ash (אפר) in the water → permitted even with fat, for it is noten taam lifgam (seif 4).
One does not store kutach near salt; near vinegar → permitted (seif 5). Jugs of meat/dairy side by side → permitted (seif 6). Salt from a meat dish in milk → permitted (seif 7). Some are strict le-khatchila.
Memory table
Situation
Status
Fish cooked, well-washed pot, with dairy
🟢 Permitted (nat bar nat de-hetera; Rama: be-di'avad with cooking)
Egg cooked with meat, with dairy
🔴 Forbidden
Washing-up: 2 ben yomo + together + keli rishon (Rama)
🔴 Forbidden (the custom)
Washing-up: one not ben yomo / separately / keli sheni
🟢 Permitted
Davar charif cooked in a meat vessel
🔴 Forbidden even be-di'avad (60)
Ash (אפר) in the water, even with fat
🟢 Permitted (noten taam lifgam)
Kutach near salt / near vinegar
🔴 Salt forbidden / 🟢 vinegar permitted
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
What is נותן טעם בר נותן טעם דהיתרא? Why is the fish of seif 1 permitted with dairy?
What reservation does seif 1 set? What is "ממש שעל פי הקדרה" (the substance of fat)?
What is the difference between an egg cooked in a dairy pot alone and an egg cooked with meat (seif 2)?
Lay out the machloket Mehaber / Rama. What does the Rama permit be-di'avad, and what does he permit even le-khatchila (seif 2)?
What is עלו? In what way is it lighter than cooking/frying (seif 2)?
What is a דבר חריף? Why does it forbid even be-di'avad? When is a food "charif" (seif 2)?
In the washing-up (seif 3), what are the three conditions of the Rama's prohibition? What are the escape valves?
What is עירוי? Why does neutral water poured permit even with fat (seif 3)?
Why does the ash (אפר) permit even with fat adhering (seif 4)? What is noten taam lifgam?
Why is salt forbidden near kutach but not vinegar (seif 5)? What do the Taz (s.k. 1) and the Shach (s.k. 1) say?
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpoul, the definition of nat bar nat de-hetera according to the Taz, the debate over nat bar nat in the food vs the vessel (Pithei Teshuva), the machloket over the davar charif, anchored in the sugyot of Chullin
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (Mehaber / Rama, the washing-up, the davar charif), the golden rules and quick memorization of the 7 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Practical halakha: the practical pesika (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pithei Teshuva) and the Sephardi / Ashkenazi poskim on the central machloket
The sources of this level can be consulted on Sefaria: