Siman 98 — A Prohibition Mixed into Permitted Food and Its Nullification
The foundation of ביטול בששים: min be-mino / min be-sheeino mino, the non-Jew's tasting (קפילא) and its abandonment, how to assess the sixty, the utensil that does not become נבילה, the sixty-one for the egg, the fifty-nine for the כחל, and the prohibitions that never become nullified (חמץ בפסח, יין נסך, what gives the taste) — Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah 98 — 9 seifim
יורה דעה · סימן צ״ח
דין איסור שנתערב בהיתר ואופן ביטולו
🌱 Introduction Level · מתחילים
✦ ❖ ✦
A first approach to Siman 98: the 9 seifim of the Mehaber and the glosses of the Rama, the Hebrew text with a fluent English translation. What does one do when a prohibition (חֵלֶב, milk, blood…) mixes into permitted food? The role of a non-Jew's tasting (טעימת קפילא), of noten taam lifgam, of the distinction min be-mino / min be-sheeino mino, of nullification by sixty (ביטול בששים), of sixty against the whole prohibition, of the utensil that does not become נבילה, of the sixty-one for the egg, the fifty-nine for the כחל, and of what never becomes nullified.
Topic: A prohibition mixed into permitted food — nullification, sixty, min be-mino, 61, 59, what never becomes nullified Source: שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן צ״ח
Compiled by: הרב יוסף חיים סממה DAAT · daattorah.com
📑 Study outline
1.The text of the Mehaber: the 9 seifim, by thematic groups
2.Context: why this siman is the foundation of ביטול בששים
3.The key concepts: kapila, sixty, min be-mino, noten taam lifgam, chnn of kelim…
4.The nullification: the table of measures (60, 61, 59, what is not nullified)
5.The Shach and the Taz: who they are, a few key entries
6.The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
7.Sixty against the whole prohibition: why, and the duty to remove
8.Modern practical cases: forbidden ladle, pot, what gives the taste
9.Summary and comprehension questions
1. The text of the Mehaber — the 9 seifim
Siman 98 is THE founding siman of ביטול בששים (the nullification of a prohibition in sixty times its volume). After the simanim that dealt with one prohibition or another (forbidden fat, blood, meat-and-milk), the Mehaber (Rabbi Yossef Karo) here lays down the general rule: what does one do when a prohibition has mixed into permitted food? Everything depends on the kind (מין במינו, same kind, or מין בשאינו מינו, a different kind), on the perception of taste (a non-Jew tastes, or one assesses by sixty), and on the measure (how much permitted food against the prohibition?). The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds his glosses (הגה) for practice — notably that we no longer rely on a non-Jew's tasting and that we now assess everything by sixty. Let us explore the seifim by groups.
Group A — The taste, the kind, the "spilled" (seifim 1-3)
Seif 1 — Min be-sheeino mino / min be-mino; the non-Jew's taste (kapila)
A prohibition mixed into permitted food, of a different kind (מין בשאינו מינו) — for example forbidden fat (חֵלֶב) mixed into meat: a non-Jew tastes it; if he says there is no taste of fat, or that there is a taste but it is spoiled (פָּגוּם) → it is permitted — provided it is not destined to improve later (סופו להשביח), and that the non-Jew does not know that one is relying on him. If there is no non-Jew to taste it → one assesses by sixty. Likewise if it is מין במינו (the same kind): since there is no way to judge by taste (ליכא למיקם אטעמא) → one assesses by sixty. Gloss of the Rama:today we no longer have the practice of relying on the non-Jew, and we assess everything by sixty.
The central idea: two tools to know whether the prohibition is nullified. (a) The taste: a non-Jew tastes — no taste, or a spoiled taste, it is permitted (unless the prohibition will give a good taste "later"). (b) The measure: when one cannot taste — whether because there is no non-Jew, or because it is the same kind (where the prohibition's taste blends into that of the permitted food) — one assesses by sixty. And the Rama rules that nowadays we no longer taste via a non-Jew: we rely always on the sixty.
Seif 2 — Spilled (נשפך); majority permitted; the name vs. the taste
If מין במינו (the same kind) mixed and was spilled (נשפך) such that one can no longer measure it: if one knows the permitted food was the majority (רובו היתר) → permitted; if not → prohibited. Gloss of the Rama: for מין במינו, one follows the name (שֵׁם) — if the name is the same, it is מין במינו —, one does not follow the taste (טַעַם) (whether it is similar or not). But מין בשאינו מינו (a different kind) spilled → even if one knows the permitted food was the majority, it is prohibited (for the taste of a different kind is sensed — a Torah prohibition). And if the prohibition mixed into its own kind AND into another kind, and was spilled, and one knows the permitted food of its own kind was the majority → one regards the non-kind as if it were not there (סלק את שאינו מינו), and the majority of its own kind nullifies it.
The pivot of the seif: when the mixture has been spilled and can no longer be measured, everything depends on the kind. In the same kind, since the taste betrays nothing, a majority of permitted food suffices (we are lenient). In a different kind, the taste would be sensed: the majority does not suffice, it is prohibited (we are stringent). The Rama clarifies that "same kind" is defined by the name, not by the taste.
All this (the leniency of the "spilled") is said only when the mixture was spilled (נשפך); but a prohibition mixed into permitted food that is before us (לפנינו) and that one cannot measure → it is prohibited, even if it is a Rabbinic (מדרבנן) prohibition (the leniency granted to the "spilled" does not apply here).
Why this stringency? When the mixture is still here, before us, the only obstacle is our inability to measure it — this is not a genuine doubt but a lack of knowledge. We therefore do not apply the leniency of the "spilled," and the prohibition remains forbidden, even rabbinically. (The Taz, s.k. 6, calls this a ספק הבא ממיעוט הכרה — a "doubt" that stems only from our lack of recognition, and is not a true doubt.)
Group B — Sixty against the whole prohibition, utensils and chnn (seifim 4-5)
Seif 4 — Sixty against the WHOLE prohibition; pot and ladle; the duty to remove
A prohibition cooked with permitted food, even recognizable, whole, that one threw away → one needs sixty against the WHOLE prohibition, because we do not know how much came out of it. Therefore one who cooks in a forbidden pot that is bat yoma (used for the prohibition within the last 24 h), or dips a forbidden ladle into permitted food → needs sixty against the whole pot / against all the part dipped of the ladle, since we do not know how much was absorbed — whether they are of earthenware (חרס), wood, or metal. Gloss of the Rama: provided the absorption occurred through the heat of fire (for then the absorption pervades the whole utensil); but through salting (מליחה), the utensil absorbs only כדי קליפה (a peel's depth), and one assesses only against כדי קליפה (see Siman 69). Some are more stringent with a metal ladle, requiring sixty against the whole even if only a part was dipped, by חם מקצתו חם כולו ("hot in part = hot in whole"). Gloss of the Rama: one follows the first opinion. And any prohibition nullified by sixty — if one recognizes it, one must remove it, even after its taste was nullified by sixty; thus if milk fell into a dish and its taste was nullified by sixty, one adds cold water (milk, by nature, congeals and floats) and removes it — since one can remove it, it is as if it were recognizable. A prohibition nullified in a pot, removed, then fallen into another pot → one must re-nullify it in sixty against the whole, and so always; but fallen twice into the same pot → a single sixty suffices (see Siman 94).
Why sixty against the whole prohibition? Because we do not know how much it discharged: out of caution, we count as though it had discharged all of it. Hence the rule for utensils: a forbidden pot that is bat yoma, or a ladle, absorbed an unknown amount → one assesses against all the utensil (or all the dipped part). And note the Rama's distinction: through fire, absorption pervades the whole utensil; through salting, only a peel. Finally, the separable prohibition (milk congealed by cold water) must be removed even once nullified.
Seif 5 — Known quantity (kama bala); the utensil does not become nevila; charas
If one knows how much the prohibition is — for instance a new ladle, or one not bat yoma, with which one stirred and which absorbed a kazayit of milk, and then stirred a meat pot → one needs only sixty to nullify the kazayit it absorbed. Gloss: for with a utensil we do not say חתיכה נעשית נבילה ("it becomes nevila"), even if one stirred a prohibition with it. But an old ladle that is bat yoma → one assesses against the whole utensil — gloss: for everything it absorbed became prohibited and we do not know how much. Some say that even here, sixty for the kazayit suffices. Gloss of the Rama: the first opinion is the essential one, as explained above regarding the drop of milk that fell on the pot (Siman 92). Some do not distinguish old/new but only charas (earthenware) vs. other utensils: charas, which cannot be purged by hag'ala, becomes nevila — not the others. It is good to be stringent (see Siman 92).
חתיכה נעשית נבילה (chnn) — "the piece becomes nevila": a piece of permitted food that absorbs a prohibition without sixty would become itself a full prohibition. Our seif rules that this principle does not apply to a utensil: one nullifies only against the known absorbed prohibition, not against the whole utensil (except charas, per one opinion). It is the counterpart, on the side of kelim, of the chnn debate of Siman 92.
Group C — The half-kazayit and the egg (seifim 6-7)
A half-kazayit of prohibition mixed into permitted food → one needs sixty half-kazayit of permitted food to nullify it.
The rule is proportional. One might think that a half-kazayit, being less than a kazayit (the minimum measure of a prohibition one eats), would not need sixty. The Mehaber rules that it does: the ratio of one to sixty is required even below a kazayit, and even for a Rabbinic prohibition — one does not disregard the measure (the Taz, s.k. 9: לא תזלזל בשיעורא דרבנן, "do not treat a Rabbinic measure lightly").
Seif 7 — The egg (efroach / drop of blood): sixty-one
An egg containing a chick (אֶפְרוֹחַ) or a drop of blood (טיפת דם), cooked with others → one needs sixty-one to nullify its discharge (פְּלִיטָתָהּ).
Why 61 and not 60? Because the forbidden egg itself enters the count. To nullify what it discharges, one needs sixty other eggs of permitted food — and it counts as well: 60 + 1 = sixty-one eggs in all. It is the same logic, reversed, as the כחל of seif 8 (which, being already half-permitted, drops to 59).
Group D — The kachal and what never becomes nullified; the combination (seifim 8-9)
Seif 8 — The kachal: fifty-nine; what never becomes nullified
The כָּחָל (the udder) becomes nullified in fifty-nine. Gloss of the Rama: all prohibitions in force today become nullified in sixty, except חמץ בפסח and יין נסך (as explained in their place). And provided the prohibition does not give a taste in the pot; but if it does give a taste in that pot and it is forbidden in itself, even in a thousand it is not nullified as long as its taste is perceived. This is why salt and spices, things made for taste (עבידי לטעמא), if they are forbidden in themselves, are not nullified in sixty (see the end of Siman 105).
Three measures to distinguish. The general case: sixty. The egg: sixty-one (the prohibition counts itself). The kachal: fifty-nine — for the udder, being already half-permitted (it is not milk proper), requires only a reduced count. And beyond any number: what gives the taste and is forbidden in itself (salt, forbidden spices, חמץ בפסח, יין נסך) never becomes nullified, even in a thousand.
A pot containing 59 kazayit of permitted food into which fall two kazayit — one of blood and one of milk: each one combines with the 59 of permitted food to nullify the other. Likewise 29 kazayit of permitted food into which a kazayit of milk falls, and in another pot 30 of permitted food into which a kazayit of blood falls, and one mixes them by mistake (בשוגג) → permitted. Gloss of the Rama: all the more so with two kazayit, one of cheese and one of meat, where each one nullifies the other.
How do two prohibitions nullify each other? Blood and milk are prohibitions of different tastes: from the milk's standpoint, the blood is part of the "permitted food" around it, and vice versa. Each one therefore combines with the heter to drown the other in sixty. (But the Pithei Teshuva, s.k. 10, in the name of the Chavot Daat, clarifies: only when the tastes differ — two prohibitions of the same name, or in dry-with-dry (יבש ביבש), would not combine.)
2. Context — where this siman stands
The preceding simanim dealt with particular prohibitions (forbidden fat חֵלֶב, blood, meat-and-milk). Siman 98 rises higher: it establishes the general rule of nullification (ביטול) that will apply to all of those prohibitions. The question is no longer "is this food permitted?" but "when a prohibition mixes into permitted food, how and how much is needed to nullify it?," "does one judge by taste or by measure?," and "against what does one count the sixty?."
The great questions of the siman
Question
Where?
Typical answer
Judge by taste (kapila) or by measure
Seif 1
For us: always sixty (no longer tasting via a non-Jew)
A spilled mixture and the majority of permitted food
We don't know how much discharged → 60 against all; the utensil ≠ nevila
The half-kazayit and the egg
Seifim 6-7
60 half-kazayit; the egg → 61 (it counts itself)
The kachal; what never becomes nullified
Seifim 8-9
kachal → 59; what gives the taste is not nullified; combination
The cross-cutting idea: everything is a matter of taste and measure. Can the prohibition be perceived by taste? If not, what is the exact measure required (60 in general, 61 for the egg, 59 for the kachal)? Against what does one count (the single known prohibition, or all that could have discharged)? And are there prohibitions that, by their very nature, escape all nullification?
3. The key concepts of this siman
To understand Siman 98, one must master a small technical vocabulary describing how a prohibition is measured, perceived, and at times refuses to become nullified.
ביטול בששים — Nullification by sixty: a prohibition becomes nullified if it is drowned in sixty times its volume of heter. This is the mother-rule that this siman lays down. מין במינו (same kind) would be nullified by a majority (בְּרוֹב) from the Torah, but the Sages required sixty; מין בשאינו מינו (different kind) requires sixty from the Torah itself (taste is like substance, טעם כעיקר).
מין במינו / מין בשאינו מינו — Same kind / different kind: is the prohibition the same food as the permitted item (taste does not distinguish them) or a different food (taste would be sensed)? The Rama (seif 2) clarifies that "same kind" is defined by the name (שם), not by the taste.
טעימת קפילא — The non-Jew's taste: having a non-Jewish cook (קפילא) taste the dish to determine whether there is a taste of prohibition. The Mehaber admits it (seif 1); the Rama rules that today we no longer rely on it and assess everything by sixty.
נותן טעם לפגם / סופו להשביח — Spoiled taste / destined to improve: a prohibition that gives only a spoiled taste (פגום) is permitted — unless it is destined to improve later (סופו להשביח), in which case it is forbidden (seif 1).
60 כנגד כל האיסור — Sixty against the whole prohibition: since we do not know how much the prohibition (or the forbidden utensil) discharged, we count the sixty against all the prohibition / the whole utensil (seif 4), out of caution.
חתיכה נעשית נבילה of kelim — The utensil does not become nevila: unlike a piece of food, a utensil that absorbed a prohibition does not itself become "nevila" — one nullifies only against the known absorbed prohibition (seif 5; except charas per one opinion).
דבר שאינו בטל — What never becomes nullified: what gives the taste and is forbidden in itself (salt, spices, חמץ בפסח, יין נסך) is never nullified, even in a thousand (seif 8).
Two particular measures to remember: the ביצה (the forbidden egg) counts itself → 61 (seif 7); and the כחל (the udder), being already half-permitted, drops to 59 (seif 8). Everything else: 60.
4. The nullification — the table of measures
The whole siman boils down to a table of measures. One looks at which prohibition and in which configuration, and reads off the measure of heter required to nullify.
Situation
Against what / how much
Result
General case: a prohibition mixed into permitted food
Sixty times the prohibition
🟢 Nullified in sixty (60)
Cooked prohibition / bat yoma utensil (how much discharged?)
Sixty against all the prohibition / utensil
🟡 60 against all (quantity unknown)
Known quantity absorbed by a utensil
Sixty against the known prohibition
🟢 The utensil does not become nevila
The egg (efroach / blood)
Sixty others + itself
🟡 Sixty-one (61)
The kachal (already half-permitted)
Reduced count
🟢 Fifty-nine (59)
What gives the taste (salt, spices, חמץ בפסח, יין נסך)
—
🔴 Never becomes nullified (even in a thousand)
The logic in one sentence: one nullifies a prohibition in sixty times its volume — except for two corrections of counting (the egg that counts itself → 61; the kachal that is half-permitted → 59) and except for prohibitions that give a taste of their own and perceptible, which never become nullified.
The Rama's point (seif 8): nowadays, all prohibitions become nullified in sixty — including those the Torah would have nullified by a majority —, with two exceptions: חמץ בפסח and יין נסך, which are not nullified (each for its own reason, treated in its place).
5. The Shach and the Taz — the great commentators
In Yoreh De'ah, the Shulchan Arukh is never read alone. Two great commentaries accompany it on every page and structure practical study: the Shach and the Taz. They are the leading commentators (nossei kelim) in Yoreh De'ah (there is 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. 3 — The yesod: min be-mino and min be-sheeino mino
The Taz draws out the yesod (foundation) of the siman: מין במינו (same kind) would be nullified by a majority (בְּרוֹב) from the Torah — by "after the many to incline" (אחרי רבים להטות) — and it is the Sages who required sixty; therefore, in a case of doubt (such as the "spilled"), one follows the leniency (קולא). But מין בשאינו מינו (different kind), where taste is like substance (טעם כעיקר) and sixty is required from the Torah → in doubt one follows the stringency (חומרא).
A key entry from the Shach
Shach s.k. 1 — Cheilev = tarba: a different kind from the meat
The Shach clarifies that the חֵלֶב of seif 1 is the tarba (the forbidden suet), and that the taste of this fat is not the taste of the meat — it is therefore indeed מין בשאינו מינו (a different kind), which is why the Mehaber takes it as the example of the non-Jew's taste. (Not like the Ra'avan, who held it is one and the same taste, in which case it would be מין במינו, fatty meat.)
One sees the method: the Shach and the Taz do not repeat the Mehaber — they draw out the mechanism (why 60 here from the Torah, there from the Sages) and resolve the doubts (leniency in min be-mino, stringency in sheeino mino). This is exactly what one deepens at the Lamdan level, with the taste-is-like-substance debate (Pithei Teshuva s.k. 5) and the Shach / Taz dispute of seif 2.
6. The gloss of the Rama (הגה)
The Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) adds to the Mehaber's text glosses that reflect practice and refine the law in action. Here are his most striking interventions in our siman (seifim 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9).
On seif 1 — we no longer taste via a non-Jew
Gloss of the Rama: ואין נוהגים עכשיו לסמוך אעובד כוכבים ומשערינן הכל בששים — "we no longer have the practice, today, of relying on the non-Jew, and we assess everything by sixty". This is the practical reversal of seif 1: where the Mehaber permits by the non-Jew's taste, the accepted practice relies always on the sixty.
On seif 2 — min be-mino is defined by the name
Gloss of the Rama: ולענין מין במינו אזלינן בתר שמא… אבל לא אזלינן בתר טעמא — "for מין במינו, one follows the name (שם)… and not the taste". If the two foods bear the same name, it is מין במינו (and a majority of permitted food suffices in case of "spilled"), regardless of whether their taste is the same or not.
On seif 4 — fire vs. salting, and the duty to remove
Gloss of the Rama: a utensil's absorption pervades the whole utensil only through the heat of fire; through salting (מליחה), it penetrates only כדי קליפה (see Siman 69). The Rama follows the first opinion (against חם מקצתו חם כולו), and he adds the duty to remove (חובת ההסרה): any recognizable prohibition — even nullified in sixty — must be removed (milk congealed by cold water); if it then falls into another pot, one must re-nullify in 60.
On seif 5 — the utensil does not become nevila (except charas)
Gloss of the Rama: the first opinion is the essential one (60 against the known prohibition); some distinguish not old/new but charas vs. other utensils — charas, which cannot be purged by hag'ala, becomes nevila; it is good to be stringent (see Siman 92).
On seifim 8-9 — everything in sixty, except…; the combination of cheese and meat
Gloss of the Rama (seif 8): everything becomes nullified in sixty, except חמץ בפסח and יין נסך, and except what gives the taste and is forbidden in itself (salt, spices: עבידי לטעמא) — which is never nullified. Gloss of the Rama (seif 9): all the more so with two kazayit, one of cheese and one of meat, each one nullifies the other (each combining with the heter).
The Rama carefully distinguishes the base law (the Mehaber) from the accepted practice (always sixty, no non-Jew, charas stringently, the duty to remove) — while clarifying conceptual points (the name rather than the taste in min be-mino).
7. Sixty against the whole prohibition — and the duty to remove
Seif 4 — the operational heart of the siman — deserves a pause. Why sixty against the whole prohibition, and what does the "duty to remove" mean?
Everything rests on an uncertainty of quantity. We do not know how much the prohibition (or the forbidden utensil) discharged into the dish. Two consequences:
How much to assess? Out of caution, as though it had discharged all of it → sixty against all the prohibition / the whole utensil (or all the dipped part of the ladle).
Which mode of absorption? Through fire, the absorption pervades the whole utensil; through salting, only כדי קליפה (a peel) — so one assesses only against that peel.
Case
Against what sixty?
Why
Cooked prohibition, whole, thrown away
Against the whole prohibition
We don't know how much it discharged
Forbidden pot, bat yoma
Against the whole pot
Unknown absorption (fire → whole utensil)
Forbidden ladle dipped (in part)
Against all the dipped part
charas, wood or metal — fire
Absorbed quantity known
Against the known prohibition
The utensil does not become nevila (seif 5)
Absorption by salting
Against כדי קליפה only
Salting penetrates only a peel (Siman 69)
And the Rama adds the duty to remove (חובת ההסרה): even nullified in sixty, a recognizable or separable prohibition must be removed — thus the milk, which one congeals with cold water and skims off. Fallen again into another pot, one must re-nullify in 60 against the whole; but twice into the same pot → a single 60 (see Siman 94).
8. Modern practical cases
How do these rules apply in our kitchens today? Here are three common situations illuminated by our siman.
Case 1 — A dairy ladle dipped by mistake into a meat dish
One inadvertently stirs a boiling meat pot with a ladle that was used for milk. Seif 4 commands: is the ladle bat yoma (was it used for milk within 24 h)? If so, and the absorbed quantity is unknown → one needs sixty against all the dipped part of the ladle. If one knows exactly what it absorbed (e.g. a kazayit), sixty against that kazayit suffices, for the utensil does not become nevila (seif 5). For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
Case 2 — A drop of forbidden fat (cheilev) fallen into a sauce
A small amount of forbidden fat falls into a large permitted dish (seif 1). Is there sixty times that fat in the dish? If so, it is nullified (ביטול בששים). In the past one could have had it tasted by a non-Jew (kapila); but the accepted practice (Rama) is to no longer rely on him and to assess always by sixty. And if the separable fat is recognizable, one removes it even after nullification. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
Case 3 — A bit of "problematic" salt or spice in a dish
A spice or salt whose status is in question falls into a dish (seif 8). Beware: if this substance is forbidden in itself and it gives the taste to the dish (עבידי לטעמא), it is not nullified, even in sixty, even in a thousand — as long as its taste is perceived. The rule of sixty saves only what does not give a taste of its own and perceptible. For the halakha lema'asseh, consult your Rav.
The thread running through the three cases: before panicking, ask three questions — is there sixty times the prohibition (or 61, or 59)? is the prohibition separable, hence to be removed? does it give a taste of its own that would prevent all nullification? But the concrete decision always belongs to the Rav, who knows the factual details.
9. Summary of Siman 98
The essence of Siman 98 in a few sentences:
One judges a mixture by taste (kapila — abandoned by the Rama) or by measure; for us, always sixty (seif 1).
מין במינו spilled → a majority of permitted food suffices (leniency); מין בשאינו מינו → forbidden even if majority (stringency); one follows the name (seif 2).
A prohibition before us (לפנינו) and unmeasurable → forbidden, even מדרבנן (seif 3).
Sixty against the WHOLE prohibition (we don't know how much it discharged); bat yoma pot/ladle; fire (whole utensil) vs. salting (כדי קליפה); duty to remove (seif 4).
Known quantity → 60 against it; the utensil does not become nevila (except charas) (seif 5).
The kachal → fifty-nine; everything in sixty except חמץ בפסח, יין נסך, and what gives the taste (seif 8).
Two prohibitions of different tastes (blood+milk, cheese+meat) combine, each with the heter, to nullify the other (seif 9).
Memory table
Situation
Measure
General case (a prohibition in permitted food)
🟢 Sixty (60)
Pot / ladle bat yoma (unknown quantity)
🟡 Sixty against the whole utensil
Egg (efroach / blood)
🟡 Sixty-one (61)
Kachal (udder)
🟢 Fifty-nine (59)
חמץ בפסח / יין נסך
🔴 Not nullified
What gives the taste (salt, forbidden spices)
🔴 Never nullified (even in a thousand)
Comprehension questions
Check your understanding:
In seif 1, what are the two tools (taste / measure)? What does the Rama rule about the non-Jew's taste?
What is נותן טעם לפגם? When is it not permitted (סופו להשביח) (seif 1)?
In a spilled mixture, why is מין במינו lenient and מין בשאינו מינו stringent (seif 2)? Does one follow the name or the taste?
Why is a prohibition לפנינו that is unmeasurable forbidden even מדרבנן (seif 3)?
Why sixty against the WHOLE prohibition (seif 4)? What is the difference between fire and salting?
What is the חובת ההסרה? How does one remove the nullified milk (seif 4)?
Does a utensil become nevila (seif 5)? What does charas change according to the Rama?
Why is the egg → 61 (seif 7) and the kachal → 59 (seif 8)?
Which prohibitions never become nullified (seif 8)? Why salt and spices?
How do two prohibitions combine to nullify each other (seif 9)? What do the Taz (s.k. 3) and the Shach (s.k. 1) say?
To go further
If you want to deepen this siman:
📚 Level 2 — Lamdan: the pilpoul, the Taz's yesod (min be-mino from the Torah vs. taste-is-like-substance), the taste-is-like-substance debate (Pithei Teshuva s.k. 5), the Shach / Taz dispute of seif 2, the chnn of kelim, anchored in the sugyot
✨ Level 3 — Synthesis: the comparative tables (60 / 61 / 59, min be-mino / sheeino mino), the rules of thumb and quick memorization of the 9 seifim
⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha lema'asse: practical ruling (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pithei Teshuva) and contemporary poskim on concrete cases
The sources of this level are available on Sefaria: