« שלא ללוש עיסה בחלב. ובו ג׳ סעיפים » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:א)
« אין לשין עיסה בחלב שמא יבוא לאכלה עם בשר ואם לש כל הפת אסור אפי׳ לאכלה לבדה ואם היה דבר מועט כדי אכילה בבת אחת או ששינה צורת הפת שתהא ניכרת שלא יאכל בה בשר מותר כיוצא בו אין אופין פת בתנור שטחו באליה ואם אפאו דינו כעיסה שנילושה בחלב » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:א)
« ולכן נוהגין ללוש פת עם חלב בחג השבועות גם בשומן לכבוד שבת כי כל זה מחשב כדבר מועט גם כי צורתן משונה משאר פת וכ״ש פלאד״ן או פשטיד״א דמותרין » (רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א)
« ואין לאפות שום פת עם פלאד״ן או פשטיד״א בתנור דחיישינן שמא יזוב מן השומן על הפת ואם זב תחתיו דינו כאלו נילוש עמו » (רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א)
« ונוהגין לשום הטפילה בפי התנור » (רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א)
summary: one does not knead dough with milk, lest one come to eat it with meat; and if one did knead, the entire loaf is forbidden, even to eat by itself. Two cases are excepted: a small amount eaten at one sitting, and a loaf whose shape has been changed so as to be recognisable. The same rule applies to an oven smeared with tail fat. The Rama derives from this the custom of kneading with milk on Shavuos and with fat in honour of Shabbos, and adds the precaution concerning bread baked together with a pladen.
The ground — there is no absorption here at all, but a גזירה
The whole siman rests on a fact that must be set down before any discussion opens: dough kneaded with milk contains no prohibition whatever. No meat has entered it, and milk taken by itself is permitted without reservation. Nothing has been absorbed that should not have been. And yet the Shulchan Aruch forbids it, and forbids the entire loaf.
The reason it gives is not a reason of mixture but of apprehension: that one may come, later, to eat this bread together with meat.
« שמא יבוא לאכלה עם בשר » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:א)
That is why the bread is forbidden even to eat by itself — although, on that assumption, eating it by itself would involve no transgression at all. The Shach, in five words, ties this stringency explicitly to the גזירה itself.
« אפילו לאכלה לבדה. גזירה שמא יאכלנה עם בשר » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א)
נפקא מינה — a prohibition that does not dissolve in the majority: since this is a גזירה and not an absorption, there is no בטל בששים here as in other mixtures. The bread is struck in itself by the decree, and the milk kneaded into it is not lost in the mass of flour and water. Here lies the oddity of the siman: a permitted thing (milk) kneaded into a permitted thing (dough) renders the whole forbidden, although in substance there is no prohibition there at all.
The Shach’s reading (ס״ק א): the Shach says only five words — « גזירה שמא יאכלנה עם בשר » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א) — but he sets them precisely on the words even to eat it by itself, and that placement is the reading: the stringency of forbidding it even by itself is the גזירה, and not a consequence of some absorption. It follows that the two permissions of the seif do not lift a prohibition: they remove the ground for apprehension.
2. The two distinguishing marks that permit — small amount and changed shape
This is the heart of the seif: how the גזירה is lifted, and what the limits of each of the two marks are.
The chakira — what is a mark that lifts the גזירה? If the whole prohibition rests on the apprehension that one will eat this bread with meat, then wherever that apprehension has no place there is no גזירה. The Shulchan Aruch names two situations in which it falls away: an amount so small that it is eaten at one sitting, and a loaf whose shape has been changed so as to be recognisable. It remains to ask whether the two marks operate in the same way — or whether one removes the occasion of the transgression and the other the warning that forestalls it.
« ואם היה דבר מועט כדי אכילה בבת אחת או ששינה צורת הפת שתהא ניכרת שלא יאכל בה בשר מותר » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:א)
The two marks, each in its own order:
(א) כדי אכילה בבת אחת — an amount eaten at one sitting. Here nothing warns anyone: it is the occasion that disappears, since the bread does not survive long enough for one to come to eat it with meat.
(ב) שינה צורת הפת — a distinct shape, made in order to be recognised. Here the occasion remains entire, and it is the warning that neutralises it; which is why this second mark holds good even for a large amount.
The Rama draws from this the received custom: kneading bread with milk on Shavuos and with fat in honour of Shabbos — because these are small amounts and their shape differs from ordinary bread.
« ולכן נוהגין ללוש פת עם חלב בחג השבועות גם בשומן לכבוד שבת כי כל זה מחשב כדבר מועט גם כי צורתן משונה משאר פת וכ״ש פלאד״ן או פשטיד״א דמותרין » (רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א)
The limits of the change of shape — Maharit, brought by the Pischei Teshuva (ס״ק ג): the mark does not operate everywhere. The Maharit confines it to the home: making a large quantity to sell in the market does not help, since guests will not recognise the mark; nor is it enough to rely on telling them, lest one forget to tell.
« דאין מועיל שינוי רק בביתו אבל לעשות הפת מרובה למכור בשוק אסור דאורחים לא יכירו בשינוי » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
« ואף על סמך ההודעה אסור דחיישינן שמא ישכח מלהודיע » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
The second limit is the Chavos Daas’s, not the Maharit’s: the Pischei Teshuva brings it at the same ס״ק, but under a different name, and the distinction matters — it is the Chavos Daas who requires that the change be made at the time of baking, when no prohibition had yet taken hold; a shape given afterwards, to bread already forbidden, is worth nothing.
« ועיין ח״ד שכתב עוד דשינוי אין מועיל רק כששינה בשעת אפיה דלא היה עליו איסור כלל אבל לעשות שינוי אחר שכבר נאסר אינו מועיל » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
One does not divide what has already become נבלה — the Chavos Daas (פ״ת ס״ק ג): from the same root comes a harder consequence still. A large loaf kneaded with milk in the ordinary way is forbidden; one does not save it by afterwards dividing it among several people so that each receives only a small amount. The reason is that the prohibition has already taken hold: the bread has become נבלה, and a later division does not undo what has occurred. From this one sees that the first mark (the small amount) is not assessed at the moment of eating but at the moment when the גזירה could have applied.
« וכן לחלקו להרבה ב״א שיגיע לכ״א דבר מועט אסור כיון שכבר נאסר ונעשה נבלה » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
נפקא מינה — a third road, which is neither the amount nor the shape: the Pischei Teshuva further brings, in the name of the Maharit, that the prohibition reaches only what one is actually liable to eat with cheese. Pastries filled with sweet things, which it is not the way to eat with cheese, would therefore be permitted to knead with fat. This is no longer a distinguishing mark, but the disappearance of the apprehension itself. In practice — ask your Rav.
« אבל היכא דליכא למיחש להכי כמו אותם הממולאים במיני מתיקה שאין דרך לאכלן עם גבינה מותר ללוש אותם עם שומן » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
3. Inadvertently or deliberately — was a penalty imposed?
The Mechaber writes that if he kneaded, the entire loaf is forbidden, even to eat by itself — and he draws no distinction. Neither between one who kneaded deliberately and one who kneaded inadvertently, nor between what is done beforehand and what is already done.
The chakira — was a penalty imposed even on the shogeg? Since the prohibition is not one in itself but a decree, there is room to ask: when one transgressed and kneaded, was the kneader penalised by forbidding the bread even in the case of inadvertence and after the fact — or was the penalty imposed only on one who acted deliberately, the bread remaining permitted to the shogeg?
« ואם לש כל הפת אסור אפי׳ לאכלה לבדה » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:א)
« ועיין פמ״ג בשפ״ד סק״א שכתב דיש לעיין אם לש פת עם חלב בשוגג שלא ידע שזה אסור או נפל בשוגג חלב מי אסור או לא קנסו כ״א היכא שעבר במזיד » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
« ומסתימת הפוסקים משמע אף בשוגג אסור » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
What the Pischei Teshuva (ס״ק ב) actually says: it must be read closely, for the form of the answer is not that of a ruling. The Pri Megadim, in the Siftei Daas, raises the question — he writes that it requires examination whether a penalty was imposed also on one who kneaded without knowing it was forbidden, or on one into whose dough milk fell inadvertently. And he settles it not by any express view of the poskim but by their silence: from the fact that the poskim write without distinguishing, it appears that it is forbidden even to the shogeg.
What an argument from silence is worth: the support is not of the same order as a reasoned ruling, and that must be said. The Pri Megadim produces no posek who writes even for a shogeg; he produces the absence of a distinction among those who write. This is a legitimate way of concluding, and it is also the weakest: it holds so long as no one shows that the poskim had in view the ordinary case, that of the מזיד. The Pischei Teshuva, who brings all of this, further refers on this point to the Nachalas Tzvi, and does not rule of his own accord.
נפקא מינה: bread kneaded with milk with no distinguishing mark at all — neither a small amount nor a changed shape — is forbidden to eat even though the thing was done by mistake. In practice — ask your Rav.
4. An oven smeared with alya — fat in substance, and libbun
« תנור שטחו באליה אין אופין בו פת עד שיסיקנו מבפנים עד שיתלבן » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ב)
« ואפילו אם הוא של בוכיא … אין לו היתירא על ידי היסק מבחוץ » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ב)
summary: an oven that has been smeared with tail fat — one does not bake bread in it until one has heated it from within until it glows. And even if it is a buchya, there is no permission through heating applied from the outside.
יסוד — fat in substance, not an absorption:
An oven smeared with alya is not of the same order as bread kneaded with milk. Here the fat is in substance on the wall: it is not a taste that has passed into the clay, it is the body of the thing itself clinging there. And the Taz adds the material fact that governs everything: an oven cannot be wiped clean properly. Hence wiping does not suffice, and it must be heated until it glows, which burns away the fat itself.
« הא דלא סגי בקינוח מפני שא״א לתנור להתקנח יפה והוה השמנונית בעין עד שיוסק » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
What the Taz distinguishes, and where he distinguishes it:
The case
The ruling
The reason, and where it is written
A cheese pladen baked on the oven floor itself
Absorption only — no libbun required
There is no fat in substance in the oven there, nothing but an absorption from the pladen (Taz ס״ק ד)
An oven smeared with alya
It must be heated from within until it glows
The fat itself is smeared onto the wall, and that moisture cannot be wiped clean properly (Taz ס״ק ד)
« משא״כ בפלאדי״ן דלעיל שאין שם שומן בעין כלל בתנור אלא בליעה מן הפלאדי״ן » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
« דשאני כאן שהשמנונית עצמה מטיח ממנה בתנור ואותו לחות אינו מתקנח יפה בתנור » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
קושיא — the Taz against himself: at the preceding ס״ק he has just written that an oven floor that absorbed from a pladen is like an absorption in a pot; and here he writes that there is prohibited matter in substance. He raises the objection himself. Then a second one: the Rama at seif א says to be concerned lest the fat run beneath the bread — which suggests that there is, beneath the pladen, prohibited matter in substance.
תירוץ: to the first, the Taz answers that the two cases are not the same: in the smeared oven it is the fat itself that is applied to the wall; beneath a pladen there is only an absorption. To the second he answers from observation: we shall not deny what the eye sees, namely that the place of the pladen stays dry; the Rama’s meaning is that as a rule nothing runs beneath a pladen, but that at times it happens that it does.
« אלא פשוט דסתם פלאדי״ן אין זב תחתיו כמו שאנו רואין תמיד אלא דלפעמים אירע שזב » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
The case put to the Taz (ס״ק ג): a woman had baked a cheese pladen directly on the floor of her oven, without a vessel, and had then set a boiling pot of meat on the same spot. The Taz answers that there is no prohibition there: the clay of the oven which absorbed from milk is no worse than a pot in which milk was cooked and which touched a meat pot — a case in which the poskim see no prohibition, and which the Rama brings at siman 92, seif ח. As for the Rama’s stringency about the pan, at the end of seif א, it applies only beforehand.
« נשאלתי באשה שאפתה פלאדי״ן של גבינה בתנור על קרקע שלו בלא כלי ואח״כ שמה שם קדרה של בשר רותחת על אותו המקום שהיה הפלאדי״ן » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
« והשבתי שאין כאן איסור דחרסית של תנור שבלעו מן החלב לא גרע מקדירה שמבשלין בתוכה חלב ונגעה בקדירה של בשר » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
« דאין שם איסור כמ״ש הפוסקים בשתי קדרות שנוגעות זו בזו » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
What remains open: the Taz rests his answer on what the eye sees, that is, on a state of fact about the ovens and the pladen of his own day. The criterion he lays down is a legal one — fat in substance or mere absorption; but its application depends on an observation. We report the distinction, and we do not presume to decide what the eye would see elsewhere.
An examination of the end of seif ב — why the buchya itself, which is heated from below, is not made permitted by that heating.
The chakira — what is a buchya, and why is there no way out from the outside? The Mechaber himself supplies the gloss: an earthenware vessel that is heated from below and on which cakes are baked. Since its heating is precisely an external one, one might have thought that this very heating would suffice to make it permitted. That is what the seif refuses.
« ואפילו אם הוא של בוכיא » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ב)
« אין לו היתירא על ידי היסק מבחוץ » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ב)
The Taz’s gloss (ס״ק ה): the Taz explains what the thing is — a hollow, after the manner of a pot-stand — and where the baking is done: inside. And he states the rule in his own terms: in this case even a heating is of no avail if one heats it from without.
« פירוש הוא חלל כמין שפיתות קדירה ואופין בו בפנים וקאמר דבזה אפי׳ היסק לא מהני אם מסיקו בחוץ » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ה)
What the Taz says, and what he does not: one must be exact. The Taz gives the fact — the baking is inside, the heating is outside, and it does not avail — but he does not write the physical reason for that inefficacy. The reading that suggests itself is that the heating must reach the place where the prohibited matter has lodged, and not warm the vessel in general; that is a reading, and we give it as such. It agrees with the rule of the preceding seif, where the heating had to be done from within, precisely where the fat had been applied.
נפקא מינה: the Mechaber’s word is not that there is no remedy, but that there is no permission by way of heating from the outside. Nothing is said here about heating a buchya from within — the seif closes off one road, it does not close off others. In practice — ask your Rav.
6. ריחא — bread, roast and fish together with meat
« פת שאפאו עם הצלי ודגים שצלאן בתנור אחד עם הבשר אסור לאכלם בחלב » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
« והני מילי בתנור קטן אבל בתנור גדול המחזיק שנים עשר עשרונים ופיו פתוח מותר » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
« ואם הצלי מכוסה וכן פשטיד״א שמכוסה הנקב שבו מותר אפילו בתנור צר » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
« ועיין לקמן סימן ק״ח כיצד נוהגין » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
summary: bread baked together with the roast, and fish roasted in the same oven as meat, are forbidden to eat with milk. This applies to a small oven; in a large oven holding twelve issaronim, whose mouth is open, it is permitted. And if the roast is covered, or the pashtida whose hole is stopped, it is permitted even in a narrow oven.
יסוד — ריחא מילתא:
This whole seif rests on a position in the gemara in Pesachim: smell is something. The vapour rising from the roast during baking carries a taste of meat to the bread or to the fish baked with it, and renders them forbidden to eat with milk. The gemara even supplies the very formulation that will become this seif: bread baked with a roast in an oven is forbidden to eat with kutach.
Small oven — bread or fish together with a meat roast
Forbidden to eat with milk
Large oven, holding twelve issaronim, mouth open
Permitted
Roast covered, or pashtida whose hole is stopped
Permitted even in a narrow oven
« והני מילי בתנור קטן אבל בתנור גדול המחזיק שנים עשר עשרונים ופיו פתוח מותר » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
« ואם הצלי מכוסה וכן פשטיד״א שמכוסה הנקב שבו מותר אפילו בתנור צר » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
Why it is forbidden here, when siman 108 permits after the fact: the Shach raises the difficulty and answers it in a word worth keeping. At the start of siman 108, kosher meat roasted with the meat of a neveila in one oven, even a small one, is permitted after the fact; here it is not. The reason is not that ריחא is stronger here: it is that in our case one can eat the bread without milk. Nothing compels one to consume the thing in the forbidden manner; and therefore this is not a case of after the fact at all, but a case of beforehand.
The measure of twelve issaronim — a machlokes the Pischei Teshuva (ס״ק ז) brings, and which must be attributed the right way round: the Yad Eliyahu holds that the floor of the oven need not hold that measure, but that it is enough for the whole inner space to hold it. The Pri Megadim is not of that view: he requires that it be the floor of the oven that holds twelve issaronim of bread a tefach thick.
« דאין צריך שיהא קרקעיתו של תנור מחזיק כל כך אלא שיהא כל חלל התנור מחזיק כל כך » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ז)
« ועיין פמ״ג שאין דעתו כן רק דבעינן שיהא קרקעית התנור מחזיק י״ב עשרונים מפת עבה טפח » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ז)
נפקא מינה: an oven with a narrow floor but a wide inner space will be large for the Yad Eliyahu and small for the Pri Megadim — and bread baked in it together with a roast will be permitted or forbidden with milk according to the view one follows. The Shach elsewhere gives the measure of an issaron: it is the measure of challah, forty-three eggs and a fifth of an egg. In practice — ask your Rav.
« וכל עשרון הוא שיעור חלה מ״ג ביצים וחומש ביצה » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ה)
Where the siman refers, and where it does not — two referrals not to be confused: the seif closes with a referral to siman 108, and the Shach confirms it: that is where the laws of ריחא מילתא are set out as they should be, for that is their place. But the Shach takes care, at his ס״ק ג, to set aside a second subject: he deals here only with the prohibition, and not with the danger of fish roasted together with meat — which, he says, will be explained at the beginning of siman 116. Two referrals, two simanim, and to treat them as one would be an error.
« ועיין לקמן סימן ק״ח כיצד נוהגין » (שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:ג)
« וע״ל סי׳ ק״ח שם יתבארו על נכון דיני ריחא מילתא כי שם מקומם » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
« לא איירי כאן אלא מדין איסור אבל מסכנתא לא מיירי וזה יתבאר בר״ס קי״ו » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ג)
7. נ״ט בר נ״ט and the prohibition that stays in its place
The two foundations of the Pischei Teshuva (ס״ק ד–ו)
Two opposing principles govern this section, and everything turns on knowing which of them applies to the case before us. If the bread received only an absorbed taste, without fat in substance, it is a נ״ט בר נ״ט and its regime is light. If fat in substance settled upon it, it stays in its place and does not dissolve.
« דפת שנאפה עם עיסה שאין בה שומן בעין אלא טעם בלוע אפילו נגע בה ע״י לח רותח מותר בין עם בשר בין עם חלב דנ״ט בר נ״ט הוא » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
« מבואר שם דאפילו בפחות מכדי נ״ט אסור משום דהאיסור עומד במקומו ואינו מתבטל » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ו)
נ״ט בר נ״ט — the Pnei Aryeh (פ״ת ס״ק ד): bread baked beside a dough that contains no fat in substance but only an absorbed taste — and this even if it touched it by way of a hot liquid — is permitted both with meat and with milk, for it is a נ״ט בר נ״ט. The Pnei Aryeh adds the restriction that orders the whole: beforehand it is forbidden, as the Rama writes at siman 95, seif ב, in his gloss; but after the fact, if it was put into milk, it may be eaten, and with meat it is permitted even beforehand.
« דפת שנאפה עם עיסה שאין בה שומן בעין אלא טעם בלוע אפילו נגע בה ע״י לח רותח מותר בין עם בשר בין עם חלב דנ״ט בר נ״ט הוא » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
« אלא דלכתחלה אסור כמ״ש הרמ״א לעיל סימן צ״ה ס״ב בהגהה אבל בדיעבד אה נתנו לתוך החלב מותר לאוכלו ועם בשר מותר לאוכלו אפילו לכתחלה » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ד)
ואם זב תחתיו(רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א) — three readings of one gloss of the Rama: the Rama wrote that if the fat ran beneath, the bread is as though kneaded with it. It remains to ask: beneath what?
« ואם זב תחתיו דינו כאלו נילוש עמו » (רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א)
(א) The Taz (ס״ק ב) — the fat need not be seen beneath the bread itself: it is enough that it spread beyond the pashtida and was absorbed into the oven, and we are concerned that the absorption may have travelled as far as the bread.
« לא בעינן שיהא נראה השומן תחת הפת ממש אלא כל שמתפשט חוץ לפשטיד״א ונבלע בתנור חיישינן שמא הלכה הבליעה עד הפת » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
(ב) The Shach (ס״ק ב) — the Rama’s gloss means beneath the pashtida: the Shach writes it in so many words, and his reading is wider still than the Taz’s, since it reaches bread even at a distance from the pashtida. He grounds his own distinction between beforehand and after the fact on a ספק ספיקא: perhaps nothing ran, and supposing it ran, perhaps it did not spread throughout.
« מ״ש הרב בהג״ה כאן ואם זב תחתיו ר״ל זב תחת הפשטי״ד אפי׳ רחוק מן הפת » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
« אבל בדיעבד אם אין התנור משופע או שהפת למעלה מן הפשטי״ד לא מחזקינן איסורא דשמא זב » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
« והלכך היכא דלא חזינן דזב איכא ספק ספיקא ספק זב או לא זב ואת״ל זב שמא לא פעפע בכולו » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
« אבל אי חזינן דזב מן הפשטי״ד לחוץ אפילו אינו זב תחת הפת עצמו אלא הפת רחוק מן הפשטי״ד הפת אסור אף דיעבד » (ש״ך יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ב)
(ג) The Gaon Maharar Ozer, brought by the Pischei Teshuva (ס״ק ה) — against both of the foregoing: the Rama speaks strictly, the word תחתיו meaning beneath the bread itself; otherwise it would be a נ״ט בר נ״ט, permitted after the fact. The Pischei Teshuva notes that the Kreisi u-Pleisi raised the same objection against the Taz and the Shach.
« דדוקא קאמר הרמ״א ואם זב תחתיו היינו תחת הפת ממש דאל״כ הוי נ״ט בר נ״ט דשרי בדיעבד » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ה)
The Chavos Daas’s תירוץ — and what it costs: the Chavos Daas dismisses the objection at a stroke: there is no difficulty at all, for we say נ״ט בר נ״ט only where the other taste is already absorbed; at the very time of cooking the notion has no place. The answer is strong, but it has a price: it removes from the bread any benefit of נ״ט בר נ״ט in the very case the Rama is speaking of.
« ועיין בח״ד שכתב דלא קשה מידי דלא אמרינן נ״ט בר נ״ט רק כשטעם האחר הוא בלוע כבר אבל בשעת בישול לא שייך זה » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ה)
נפקא מינה — the actual case of the Beis Efraim: women were baking their bread, and one of the neighbours had put in small loaves filled with onions and butter, from which some ran onto the oven floor. The Beis Efraim concludes that it is permitted, and for two distinct reasons — first because nothing ran beneath the bread itself, which makes it a נ״ט בר נ״ט, against the Chavos Daas; and second because the butter was a small amount, not enough to give taste to the bread, which all agree to. The two reasons do not carry equally far, and the Pischei Teshuva marks this: on the first, eating those loaves with milk remains forbidden; on the second, even that is permitted. In practice — ask your Rav.
« והעלה דכיון דלא זב תחת הפת ממש הוי נ״ט בר נ״ט דלא כח״ד » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ה)
« ועוד דכיון שהיה החמאה דבר מועט ואין בה בכדי נ״ט בפת מותר אליבא דכ״ע » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ה)
איסור עומד במקומו — the Maharit (פ״ת ס״ק ו): fat lying upon the bread or in the oven is forbidden even in less than the measure needed to impart taste, because it is not mixed in and nullified but stays in its place, and what stays in its place is not nullified. Three positions then separate, and they must be kept apart: the Chavos Daas divides — if the fat fell on the bread or stuck to an oven smeared with alya, sixty is of no avail; but if the milk was kneaded into the bread, sixty suffices. The Beis Efraim disputes this: sixty avails in every case, save that one must remove the place.
« מבואר שם דאפילו בפחות מכדי נ״ט אסור משום דהאיסור עומד במקומו ואינו מתבטל » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ו)
« וס״ל לחלק בין אם נפל על הפת או שנדבק בתנור שטחוהו באליה דאז לא מהני ס׳ ובין אם נילוש החלב בתוך הפת דאז שרי אי איכא ששים » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ו)
« ודעתו דבכל ענין מהני ס׳ רק דצריך נטילה באותו מקום » (פת״ש יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק ו)
« ופעם אחת דכו שם שום עם מרק משל שומן אווז ואחר כך מחזירין אותו הרוטב על האווז » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א)
« נ״ל שאותה מדוכה אסורה לדוך בה עוד בשמים אפילו לאכול בבשר שמא יבוא לאכול בחלב דומיא דכאן » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א)
« וצריכה הכשר דוקא ואפילו דיעבד אסור בלא הכשר כמו הפת דכאן » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א)
The Taz begins from a mortar in which spices are pounded, spices used sometimes with meat and sometimes with milk. On one occasion garlic was pounded in it together with broth of goose fat, and that broth was afterwards returned onto the goose. The mortar has therefore absorbed a taste of meat. The Taz concludes that it is henceforth forbidden to pound spices in it even to eat with meat, lest one come to eat them with milk — and he adds two stringencies: the mortar requires kashering, and without it the prohibition holds even after the fact, exactly like the bread of our siman.
יסוד — extending the גזירה from the bread to the vessel:
One might have thought the rule of the siman confined to bread. The Taz carries it over to the mortar, and the way he does so deserves notice: he does not argue from a קל וחומר, but from a likeness — he writes that it is as here. The reasoning is therefore analogical: since the apprehension is the same, the rule is the same. It follows that שמא יבוא לאכלה עם בשר(שו״ע יו״ד צ״ז:א) is not a local rule attached to bread, but a principle that follows the apprehension wherever it is met with.
« נ״ל שאותה מדוכה אסורה לדוך בה עוד בשמים אפילו לאכול בבשר שמא יבוא לאכול בחלב דומיא דכאן » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א)
Why siman 96 does not contradict — and what siman 96 actually says:
The source
What is said there
The Taz’s distinction
Siman 96, seif ג
Spices pounded in a meat mortar are forbidden with milk, but permitted with meat
There the mortar is designated for meat exclusively: its use is fixed, and one knows what one is dealing with
Siman 97 (Taz ס״ק א)
An all-purpose mortar that absorbed a taste of meat — forbidden even for meat, and it must be kashered
Here nothing is designated: it serves for the one and for the other, and from that the apprehension is born
« ולא דמי למ״ש בסי׳ צ״ו סעיף ג׳ תבלין שנידוכו במדוכה של בשר אסור בחלב אבל עם בשר מותר שם מיירי שהמדוכה מיוחדת לבשר דוקא » (ט״ז יו״ד צ״ז ס״ק א)
The root of the matter: there is therefore no contradiction between the two simanim, and the difference is not one of stringency but of the designation of the vessel. Where the mortar is set apart for a single use, the prohibition is circumscribed and there is no fear of a mistake. Where it serves indifferently for both, the apprehension returns and the גזירה of the bread extends. From this one sees that the Taz teaches not so much a stringency as a limit: the גזירה follows the apprehension, and stops where the apprehension stops. The Taz indeed ends with a word that states his own confidence — he writes that this seems to him plain.
The chakira that runs through the whole siman: what is the ground of the prohibition — an absorption, or a גזירה? And when is the גזירה lifted?
A גזירה, not an absorption — lest one come to eat it with meat, and it is forbidden even to eat by itself (Mechaber seif א; Shach ס״ק א).
Two distinguishing marks — an amount eaten at one sitting, and a changed shape of the loaf; at home, and at the time of baking (Mechaber seif א; Maharit and Chavos Daas, Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ג).
Inadvertence and intent — from the silence of the poskim, the Pri Megadim concludes that it is forbidden even to a shogeg (Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ב).
Alya — fat in substance — it must be heated until it glows and not merely wiped, because an oven cannot be wiped clean properly; and a buchya is not permitted by heating from outside (Mechaber seif ב; Taz ס״ק ד–ה).
ריחא — a large open oven, or a covering, lift the prohibition; and for the subject itself, see siman 108 (Mechaber seif ג; Shach ס״ק ד).
נ״ט בר נ״ט — a taste merely absorbed is light; fat in substance stays in its place and is not nullified (Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ד and ו).
נפקא מינה for practice, as the apparatus sets them out:
Bread kneaded with milk with no distinguishing mark is forbidden even to eat by itself, and, from the silence of the poskim, even if it was kneaded by mistake (Mechaber seif א; Pri Megadim in Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ב).
The permission comes from a small amount eaten at one sitting or from a changed shape — both written by the Mechaber at seif א, and the Rama derives from them the custom of Shavuos and of Shabbos. The change of shape holds only at home (Maharit) and only at the time of baking (Chavos Daas), Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ג.
One does not afterwards divide bread already forbidden in order to permit it (Chavos Daas, Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ג).
An oven smeared with alya must be heated from within until it glows, and a buchya is not made permitted by heating from outside (Mechaber seif ב; Taz ס״ק ד–ה).
Bread and fish baked together with a roast in a small oven are forbidden with milk; in a large open oven, or under a covering, it is permitted (Mechaber seif ג). The laws of ריחא are set out at siman 108; the question of danger, at the beginning of siman 116 (Shach ס״ק ג–ד).
Dough kneaded with milk, with no distinguishing mark
The whole loaf is forbidden, even to eat by itself
Mechaber seif א; Shach ס״ק א
A small amount, or a changed shape of the loaf
Permitted — the apprehension falls away
Mechaber seif א; Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ג
Kneaded inadvertently
Forbidden even after the fact, from the silence of the poskim
Pri Megadim, in Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ב
An oven smeared with alya
Heat it from within until it glows
Mechaber seif ב; Taz ס״ק ד
A buchya — heating from outside
No permission by that road
Mechaber seif ב; Taz ס״ק ה
Bread or fish with a roast, small oven
Forbidden to eat with milk (ריחא)
Mechaber seif ג
Large oven (twelve issaronim) with open mouth
Permitted
Mechaber seif ג; Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ז
Roast covered, or pashtida whose hole is stopped
Permitted even in a narrow oven
Mechaber seif ג
Bread that received only an absorbed taste, without fat in substance
נ״ט בר נ״ט — permitted after the fact with milk, and with meat even beforehand
Pnei Aryeh, in Pischei Teshuva ס״ק ד
An all-purpose mortar that absorbed a taste of meat
Forbidden even for meat; kashering required
Taz ס״ק א
Table — the machlokos and close readings of the siman
The point
First position
Second position
The change of shape — where it operates
Maharit — at home only, and not in order to sell in the market (פ״ת ס״ק ג)
Chavos Daas — and at the time of baking only, never afterwards (פ״ת ס״ק ג)
ואם זב תחתיו(רמ״א יו״ד צ״ז:א) — beneath what?
Taz (ס״ק ב) and Shach (ס״ק ב) — it is enough that it spread beyond the pashtida
Maharar Ozer and Kreisi u-Pleisi — beneath the bread itself, failing which it is a נ״ט בר נ״ט (פ״ת ס״ק ה)
A taste absorbed at the very time of cooking
Chavos Daas — we do not say נ״ט בר נ״ט during the cooking (פ״ת ס״ק ה)
Beis Efraim — once nothing ran beneath the bread, it is a נ״ט בר נ״ט (פ״ת ס״ק ה)
Fat lying on the bread — is it nullified in sixty?
Maharit and Chavos Daas — it stays in its place and is not nullified (פ״ת ס״ק ו)
Beis Efraim — sixty avails, provided one removes the place (פ״ת ס״ק ו)
The measure of twelve issaronim
Yad Eliyahu — the inner space of the oven suffices (פ״ת ס״ק ז)
Pri Megadim — it is the floor of the oven that must hold them (פ״ת ס״ק ז)
Table — the sources of the siman
Gemara: פסחים ע״ו ע״ב — ריחא מילתא, bread baked with the roast, and fish roasted together with meat.
Works named in the apparatus of this siman: תוספות and ר״ן (Taz ס״ק ד) · הגהות אשר״י · הגהת ש״ד · הגהת או״ה · א״ז · תורת חטאת (Shach ס״ק ב) · בית יוסף and בית חדש (Shach ס״ק ב).
Acharonim: ש״ך · ט״ז · פרי מגדים · פתחי תשובה · מהרי״ט · פני אריה · מהר״ר עוזר · חוות דעת · בית אפרים · יד אליהו · כרתי ופלתי · לבושי שרד · צמח צדק · נחלת צבי.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות סימן צ״ז · Level 2 — Lamdan · dough kneaded with milk, the גזירה and what lifts it daattorah.com
⚠️ This material is written for study and iyun only. For any practical ruling (לְמַעֲשֶׂה) — ask your Rav.