✦ ❖ ✦

DAAT · LEVEL 4 — HALAKHA LE-MA'ASSE / PSAK

שולחן ערוך · יורה דעה

Siman 99 — One May Not Nullify a Prohibition Deliberately

סימן צ״ט · הלכה למעשה

דין העצמות וביטול איסור לכתחילה

פסק המחבר והרמ״א · הכרעת נושאי הכלים · פסיקת הספרדים והאשכנזים בזמננו

⚖️ פסק הלכה ולמעשה ⚖️

✦ ❖ ✦

Halakha le-ma'asse — the practical psika

The bones of the prohibition that combine (or not) with the permitted to nullify it, the rule אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה
(שוגג / מזיד), the חוזר וניעור, how to evaluate (רוטב, קיפה, מין במינו), and the trace absorbed in a utensil used in abundance

Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן צ״ט (ז' סעיפים)
עם נושאי הכלים: ש״ך, ט״ז, פרי מגדים, פתחי תשובה

⚠ Level disclaimer:
This level is not "Da'at HaRav": the Shulchan Aruch HaRav
(the Admur HaZaken) does not cover Yoreh De'ah, hence not Siman 99.
It is a level of practical psika: what one does, and whom to ask.

Writing and iyun:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT

How to read this level. Every statement is anchored either in the text of the Shulchan Aruch and its nossei kelim (Shach, Taz, Pri Megadim, Pitchei Teshuva), or in a named responsum of the contemporary poskim. On Yoreh De'ah there is neither a Mishnah Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim), nor a Shulchan Aruch HaRav / Da'at HaRav (the Admur HaZaken did not write the YD). Every concrete application (le-ma'asse) concludes with the referral to your Rav: real cases blend factual details (how much permitted and prohibited, tender or dry bones, raw or cooked, dry-in-dry or liquid, שוגג or מזיד) that only a posek who sees your situation can decide.

📑 תוכן העניינים

שורש הסימן — העצמות, המוח, וגוף הקדרה (סעיף א')
פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מסגרת ההלכה בז' סעיפים
עצמות מצטרפין — חי / מבושל, רך / יבש (סעיף א'–ב')
שאר איסורים וחתיכה נעשית נבילה — דין ומנהג (סעיף ג')
כמו שבא לפנינו — רוטב, קיפה, מין במינו, כלה מחמת האור (סעיף ד')
אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה — שוגג / מזיד, מכירה לישראל (סעיף ה')
דרבנן וחוזר וניעור — מרבה עליו, האיסור המתעורר (סעיף ו')
משהו בכלי בשפע — קדרה וקנקנים מול קערה (סעיף ז')
פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — Yabia Omer, Yalkut Yossef, Or LeTzion
פסיקת האשכנזים — Iggrot Moshe and the acharonim
מקרים מודרניים — Diluting a product, food industry, utensils
סיכום מעשי וטבלאות — ולמעשה, שאל את רבך

📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — Seif Hé (the practical core)

אֵין מְבַטְּלִין אִסּוּר לְכַתְּחִלָּה ; וַאֲפִלּוּ נָפַל לְתוֹךְ הֶתֵּר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שִׁעוּר לְבַטְּלוֹ, אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עָלָיו הֶתֵּר כְּדֵי לְבַטְּלוֹ.

עָבַר וּבִטְּלוֹ אוֹ שֶׁרִבָּה עָלָיו — אִם בְּשׁוֹגֵג, מֻתָּר ; וְאִם בְּמֵזִיד, אָסוּר.

One may not nullify deliberately (אין מבטלין). One may not nullify a prohibition deliberately; even if it fell into permitted matter that lacks the measure to nullify it, one does not add permitted matter in order to nullify it.

If one transgressed and nullified it, or added to it: by mistake (שוגג) → permitted; deliberately (מזיד) → forbidden.

— Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 99:5 · talmudic basis: the sugyot of Betza and Chullin (אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה) · Sefaria YD 99:5

1. שורש הסימן — the bones, the marrow, and the body of the pot

The foundation. Siman 99 has two themes tied by a single thread — what "counts" in the nullification calculus. (1) The bones (עצמות) of the prohibition: being not food, they are not "of the prohibition" and combine with the permitted to reach the 60; but the marrow (מוח) inside is of the prohibition. (2) And the guiding principle of psak: אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה, "one may not nullify a prohibition deliberately." The whole siman weighs what is added, what is removed, and what "reawakens" in a mixture.

Why the bones combine (Taz s.k. 1). The Taz explains: the bones are not food, so they do not bear the status of prohibition — they are like water that dilutes. This is why they strengthen the side of the permitted in the count of 60. The Taz also discusses there the Bach's question on the Rama's gloss (relating to 98:5). The marrow, by contrast, is of the substance of the prohibition, and dilutes nothing.

גוף הקדירה לא מצטרף

The body of the pot (גוף הקדירה) that is cooking right now a prohibition together with the permitted combines with neither: one does not count its walls. The Taz (s.k. 2) reports the two לשונות of the gemara (חרסית / בלוע); and he specifies that a pot already forbidden that then cooks permitted food, its body combines with the prohibition (cf. siman 98).

2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the siman

Siman 99 contains 7 seifim. The Mehaber lays the framework (the bones that combine, how to evaluate, אין מבטלין, the trace in a utensil); the Rama (הגה) glosses, and above all establishes חתיכה נעשית נבילה for all prohibitions (referring to siman 92) and the חוזר וניעור. Here is the overall map, as it emerges from the text itself.

Seif	Subject	Psak (anchored in the text)
1	עצמות מצטרפין	A piece of נבילה (meat + bones) fallen into a pot of permitted: the bones of the prohibition combine with the permitted to nullify the prohibition (and a fortiori the bones of the permitted). But the marrow (מוח) combines with the prohibition; and the body of the pot combines with neither. Rama: some are stringent not to combine the prohibition's bones; in הפסד one relies on the lenient.
2	raw / cooked	All this (the prohibition's bones combining with the permitted) when the piece of נבילה fell in raw (חי); but if it was cooked first on its own and then fell → its bones combine with the prohibition, for they absorbed נבילה meat during that solitary cooking.
3	other prohibitions; חנ״נ	For other prohibitions (outside bassar be-halav), a piece imbued with prohibition combines to nullify the prohibition. Rama: we do not act so, for we hold חתיכה נעשית נבילה for all prohibitions (see siman 92).
4	כמו שבא לפנינו	One evaluates with the broth (רוטב), the קיפה (sediment) and the pieces; permitted and prohibited כמו שבא לפנינו (as they are before us now), even if there was more permitted at first. And this in מין בשאינו מינו; but in מין במינו, one also evaluates what is absorbed in the walls (כאילו הוא בעין). What is כלה ואבד מחמת האור does not combine.
5	אין מבטלין; שוגג / מזיד	One does not nullify a prohibition לכתחילה; one does not add permitted to nullify it. Transgressed: בשוגג → permitted; במזיד → forbidden for the one who nullified and for the one for whom it was nullified (and forbidden to sell it to another Jew); for any other person → permitted. Rama: only in יבש ביבש (or לח בלח for the view that does not say חנ״נ); a piece that absorbed a prohibition → adding does not help (חנ״נ, Rashba). We do not follow the נודע / לא נודע distinction.
6	דרבנן; חוזר וניעור	A rabbinic prohibition: one does not mix it away by hand; במזיד → forbidden; if it fell on its own with nothing to nullify it → one adds (מרבה עליו) and nullifies it. Rama: some say one does not nullify even a דרבנן (and so is the custom). חוזר וניעור: a later addition of the first prohibition → it "reawakens" and becomes forbidden again. But milk nullified by 60 in water, then the water into a meat pot → permitted (already nullified).
7	משהו בכלי בשפע	A trace of prohibition absorbed in a utensil whose use is to serve with abundance (בשפע) of permitted → permitted לכתחילה even ben yomo (it cannot come to impart taste). So a pot, jugs (קנקנים). But a utensil sometimes used with a small amount (כקערה, a bowl) → forbidden even in abundance, גזירה שמא ישתמש בה בדבר מועט.

כלל הפסק של הסימן :
שני יסודות — מה מצטרף לחשבון (עצמות מצטרפין כי אינן אוכל, אך המוח עם האיסור, וגוף הקדרה אינו מצטרף), ואין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה. ולמנהגנו חתיכה נעשית נבילה בכל איסור (סימן צב), ומשערים כמו שבא לפנינו ; וכל מבטל בשוגג מותר ובמזיד אסור — לו ולמי שנתבטל בשבילו ; וכל איסור שנתבטל, אם הוסיפו עליו מן האיסור הראשון חוזר וניעור.

3. עצמות מצטרפין — raw, cooked, tender or dry

חתיכת נבילה שיש בה בשר ועצמות שנפלה לקדרה של היתר — העצמות של איסור מצטרפין עם ההיתר לבטל האיסור ; אבל המוח שבעצמות של איסור מצטרף עם האיסור. וגוף הקדרה אינו מצטרף לא עם האיסור ולא עם ההיתר.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד צ״ט:א · רמ״א: ויש מחמירין שלא לצרף עצמות האיסור עם ההיתר, ובמקום הפסד נהגו להקל.

Situation	The bones count with…	Source
Piece of נבילה fallen in raw (חי)	The prohibition's bones → with the permitted (they absorbed nothing)	Mehaber s.1-2
Piece cooked first on its own then fallen	The bones → with the prohibition (they absorbed נבילה meat)	Mehaber s.2
The marrow (מוח) in the bones	With the prohibition (it is substance)	Mehaber s.1
Dry bones / eggshells	With the permitted (even though of the prohibition)	Shach s.k. 1 (Raah, Ran, Or Zaroua, Bach)
Tender bones (with marrow / moisture)	With the prohibition	Shach s.k. 1; Ran

Tender / dry bones (Shach s.k. 1, Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 1). The Shach rules like the Ran: tender bones (which carry marrow and moisture) combine with the prohibition; dry bones and eggshells, even of the prohibition, combine with the permitted, since they contain no substance of prohibition. The Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 1) reports that the Mahari Halevi disagrees, and discusses the difference between בישול (cooking) and מליחה (salting), and between כחוש (lean) meat and שמן (fat) — details that weigh le-ma'asse.

The Rama's gloss (seif 1): הפסד

The Rama reports "יש מחמירין" not to combine the prohibition's bones with the permitted. But he concludes: in a case of הפסד (financial loss), one relies on the lenient who permit — "for that is the essential view" (כי כן עיקר). This is an important practical leniency: the stringency is only a מנהג, and it yields before a loss.

Le-ma'asse (the bones). Retain: non-edible bones (dry, shells) strengthen the permitted in the count of 60; marrow and tender, moist bones go with the prohibition; a piece fallen in raw keeps its bones "on the permitted side," but cooked first on its own, its bones absorbed and pass to the prohibition's side. In הפסד one is lenient (Rama). Classifying "tender or dry bone," "raw or cooked," and estimating the volume are questions of fact. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

4. שאר איסורים and חתיכה נעשית נבילה — the imbued piece

ובשאר איסורין, חתיכה שבלעה איסור — מצטרפת לבטל האיסור. הגה: ואין נוהגין כן, אלא אמרינן חתיכה נעשית נבילה בכל האיסורין (עיין לעיל סימן צב).

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד צ״ט:ג

Din (Mehaber) vs custom (Rama) — the machloket of psak of seif 3

Mehaber (seif 3): for other prohibitions (outside bassar be-halav), a piece of permitted that absorbed prohibition remains "permitted" and combines to nullify the prohibition within it.
Rama (seif 3): "ואין נוהגין כן" — we do not act so, for we say חתיכה נעשית נבילה for all prohibitions. The imbued piece has itself become "prohibited," and can no longer count on the permitted side. The Rama explicitly refers to siman 92 (where the din/custom machloket of חנ״נ is laid out).

הכרעה. For us (Rama), חתיכה נעשית נבילה applies to every issur: a piece that absorbed prohibition does not combine to nullify — one needs 60 against the whole piece. This is consistent with seif 5 (adding permitted "does not help" a piece that absorbed) and with the Rashba's position cited below. The Mehaber's din (the imbued piece counts on the permitted side) remains theoretical for our practice.

Le-ma'asse (חנ״נ). A piece of permitted that absorbed prohibition no longer "rejoins" the permitted to nullify: by our custom it has itself become נבילה. Distinguishing what each piece absorbed, and which prohibition is involved, is a question of fact. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

5. כמו שבא לפנינו — broth, קיפה, מין במינו

משערים בקדרה ברוטב ובקיפה ובחתיכות, ומשערים ההיתר והאיסור כמו שבא לפנינו, אף על פי שמתחילה היה בו יותר ונתמעט בבישול ונבלע בקדרה. במה דברים אמורים, במין בשאינו מינו ; אבל במין במינו, משערים גם מה שבלעה הקדרה ומה שבדפנותיה, ורואין אותו כאילו הוא בעין. אבל מה שכלה ואבד מחמת האור — אינו מצטרף.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד צ״ט:ד

What does one count?	מין בשאינו מינו	מין במינו
Broth (רוטב), קיפה, pieces	Yes — as they are (כמו שבא לפנינו)	Yes — as they are
What the pot absorbed / in its walls	No	Yes — כאילו הוא בעין (well estimated)
What diminished in the cooking	One counts what remains, not the initial	Same
כלה ואבד מחמת האור (consumed by the fire)	Does not combine (entirely gone)	Does not combine

אחזוקי איסורא לא מחזקינן (Taz s.k. 5). In מין בשאינו מינו, the nullification is deoraita by 60; one therefore cannot estimate (by conjecture) the absorbed amount in the walls in order to be more severe. The Taz lays down the principle: אחזוקי איסורא לא מחזקינן — one does not "add" presumed prohibition where one does not see it. Hence: one counts as it is now (כמו שבא לפנינו). In מין במינו (where nullification is more demanding), one also takes into account what entered the walls.

Rashba/Ran vs Rash"al (Taz s.k. 4). The Taz reports that the Rash"al is מחמיר always (he would estimate the initial), whereas Rashba and Ran — followed by the Shulchan Aruch — rule that one evaluates כמו שבא לפנינו. The קיפה (the fine particles of meat and spices gathered at the bottom) enters the count; what the fire consumed and made disappear does not.

Le-ma'asse (evaluating). One evaluates the dish as it is before us now — broth, קיפה, pieces — without adding presumed prohibition (מין בשאינו מינו); but in מין במינו one integrates also what the walls absorbed. What the fire consumed no longer counts. Distinguishing מין במינו / שאינו מינו and measuring the real volumes is a question of fact. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

6. אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה — שוגג / מזיד

אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה ; ואפילו נפל לתוך היתר שאין בו שיעור לבטלו, אין מוסיפין עליו היתר כדי לבטלו. עבר וביטלו או שריבה עליו — אם בשוגג, מותר ; ואם במזיד, אסור.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד צ״ט:ה

Deoraita or דרבנן? (Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 3). The Shach holds that אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה is דרבנן. The Noda BiYhouda (reported by the Pitchei Teshuva) specifies: nullifying the taste (טעם) of a prohibition by adding is דרבנן; but nullifying the substance (ממשות) of a prohibition יבש ביבש by majority (ברוב) is deoraita. This distinction governs the degree of stringency of the case.

שוגג permitted / מזיד forbidden — for whom?

בשוגג → permitted: one who nullified without knowing it was forbidden, or without knowing one may not nullify לכתחילה — the mixture is permitted (Taz s.k. 8; he discusses the apparent contradiction with siman 110 "הפילה").
במזיד → forbidden, but for whom? For the one who nullified (if the dish is his) and for the one for whom it was nullified — on condition, per the Taz (s.k. 10), that he knew it and was pleased (Rash"al). It is moreover forbidden to sell it to another Jew, so that he not benefit from the nullification. But for any other person → permitted.
מזיד = the will to increase (Taz s.k. 9): even if one erred about the din (thinking it permitted to add), it is deemed מזיד as long as one wanted to nullify. The Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 5) (Tzemach Tzedek): asking "lomdim" who do not rule is not like a true שוגג.

The exception "כוונה לדבר אחר" (Taz s.k. 7; siman 84:13). When one has no intention to nullify the prohibition but to repair or improve something else (the classic example: sweetening / clarifying honey, siman 84:13), and there is no other way (אי אפשר בענין אחר) — then it is not considered "nullifying לכתחילה" and it is permitted. Intention directed to another goal changes the classification.

The נודע / לא נודע debate — and the Shach's arbitration (Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 6). The Rama (S"D) reports "some": even where one does not say חנ״נ, the addition helps only if it was done before the mixture became known (לא נודע); if known before, the later addition does not help — and the Sage should investigate. But the Rama concludes: "ואין נוהגין כן." The Shach firmly disputes this distinction: only שוגג / מזיד counts, and חנ״נ applies even without נודע (the Pri Hadash and the Minchat Yaakov agree).

Le-ma'asse (אין מבטלין). Golden rule: one never deliberately dilutes a prohibition to reach the 60. If it happened by mistake (שוגג) → the mixture is permitted; deliberately (מזיד) → forbidden for the one who did it and for the one for whom he did it, forbidden to sell it to a Jew, permitted to others. The exception (intent to repair something else, with no other way) is not decided alone. Classifying שוגג / מזיד, and the question of sale, are sensitive points. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

7. דרבנן and חוזר וניעור — the prohibition that "reawakens"

איסור של דברי סופרים, אין מבטלין אותו בידים ; ואם עבר וביטלו במזיד, אסור. ואם נפל מאליו ואין בו כדי לבטלו, מרבה עליו ומבטלו. הגה: ויש אומרים דאין מבטלין איסור דרבנן ולא מרבין עליו, כדאורייתא, וכן נוהגין ואין לזוז מזה.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד צ״ט:ו

מרבה עליו דרבנן — and the Rama's custom (Taz s.k. 12). For the Mehaber, a rabbinic (דרבנן) prohibition fallen on its own with nothing to nullify it: one may add (מרבה עליו) and nullify it — he proves this from the logs of Yom Tov. The Taz notes that the Mehaber follows the Rashba here, whereas in Orach Chaim (677, Chanukah) he follows the Maharam. But the Rama rules: "ואין לזוז מזה" — one does not nullify even a rabbinic prohibition and does not add to it, exactly like a deoraita one. The Pitchei Teshuva (s.k. 7) reports the questions of the Magen Avraham and Rabbi Akiva Eiger on this מרבה עליו.

חוזר וניעור — the nullified prohibition that becomes forbidden again

The rule (Rama, seif 6): a prohibition already nullified (there were 60 against it) to which one later adds of the first prohibition (מן האיסור הראשון) → it "reawakens" (חוזר וניעור) and the whole becomes forbidden — whether מין במינו or מין בשאינו מינו, dry or liquid, whether known in between or not.
The limit (milk → water → meat): but a kazayit of milk fallen into water and nullified by 60, then fallen from the water into a meat pot → permitted, even without 60 in the meat against the milk — since it was already nullified in the water. The nullified that migrates toward a new heter does not reawaken.
The distinction (Taz s.k. 13-14): adding a different prohibition that nullifies the other is the case of siman 98; here, it is a new prohibition (איסור חדש) of the same type. And חוזר וניעור is not like dipping the ladle twice (siman 94), for there it is the same bath.

Le-ma'asse (דרבנן, חוזר וניעור). By our custom (Rama), one also does not nullify a rabbinic prohibition deliberately. And a prohibition already nullified by 60 reawakens if one adds to it of the first prohibition — one then needs 60 again against the sum. By contrast, the nullified that passes into a new permitted (milk→water→meat) does not reawaken. Recognizing "first prohibition" or "new prohibition," rabbinic or deoraita, is delicate. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

8. משהו בכלי בשפע — the pot and jugs vs the bowl

מעט איסור שנבלע בכלי, אם דרך אותו כלי לשמש בשפע של היתר — מותר להשתמש בו לכתחילה, שאי אפשר לבא לידי נתינת טעם. וכן משהו איסור שנבלע בקדרה ובקנקנים וכיוצא בהם — מותר להשתמש בהם לכתחילה, אפילו בני יומן. אבל אם נבלע בכלי שדרכו לשמש בדבר מועט, כקערה — אסור להשתמש בו אפילו בשפע, גזירה שמא ישתמש בה בדבר מועט.

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד צ״ט:ז · ט״ז ס״ק טו (רשב״א תורת הבית קכו, סוגיית הקנקנים)

The sugya of the קנקנים (Taz s.k. 15; Rashba T"H 126). The principle: a trace (משהו) of absorbed prohibition is so minimal that, in a utensil one uses with abundance (בשפע) of permitted, it can never come to impart taste (אי אפשר לבא לידי נתינת טעם) — it will always be nullified by 60 and far more. Therefore one uses it לכתחילה, even ben yomo (used within 24 hours). This is the case of the pot, the jugs (קנקנים) and bottles — always filled in large volume.

The bowl (קערה) — the גזירה. By contrast, a utensil whose use is sometimes with a small amount (a bowl, קערה) → it is forbidden to use it even with abundance, by גזירה שמא ישתמש בה בדבר מועט (lest one use it once with little, where the משהו might impart taste). The difference lies not in the present quantity, but in the nature of the use of the utensil.

Le-ma'asse (utensils). A trace of prohibition in a utensil always used in large volume (pot, jug, bottle) → one uses it לכתחילה, even ben yomo, since it can never impart taste. A utensil sometimes used with a small dose (bowl, small vessel) → forbidden, גזירה. Classifying a utensil "בשפע" or "בדבר מועט" depends on its real use. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

9. פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — the contemporary Sephardic psika

Note on method. The responsa that follow (Yabia Omer, Yehaveh Da'at, Yalkut Yossef, Or LeTzion) extend the principles of siman 99 above to modern cases. They do not appear in the corpus of the siman; they are cited as recognized streams of psika, to be confirmed with a Rav before any application.

The contemporary Sephardic psika (the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Shaul) begins exactly from the framework of the Mehaber: one evaluates כמו שבא לפנינו (seif 4), one respects אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה (seif 5) with its leniency for שוגג, and retains the חוזר וניעור (seif 6). On the prohibition's bones (seif 1) and on חתיכה נעשית נבילה applied to other prohibitions (seif 3), the Sephardic school is more inclined to follow the din (to combine the non-edible bones, not to extend חנ״נ beyond bassar be-halav) and to be lenient in הפסד גדול, as the Mehaber himself and the Rama's referral to siman 92 recall.

Concrete case	Sephardic orientation (to be verified)
The prohibition's bones in a permitted dish	One combines the non-edible bones with the permitted (Mehaber's din); marrow and tender bones with the prohibition; in הפסד, broad leniency (Rama, seif 1).
חנ״נ for another prohibition (outside bb"h)	One more readily relies on the din (the imbued piece counts on the permitted side), especially in הפסד גדול; in bassar be-halav, חנ״נ fully (siman 92).
Evaluating a cooked dish	כמו שבא לפנינו; one does not "add" presumed prohibition (Taz s.k. 5, אחזוקי איסורא לא מחזקינן).
Non-kosher product diluted deliberately	Forbidden (מזיד) for the one who did it and for the one for whom; permitted to others; forbidden to sell it to a Jew.

Anchoring in the siman. All of this follows from the text: עצמות מצטרפין (seif 1), raw / cooked (seif 2), חנ״נ and its referral to 92 (seif 3), כמו שבא לפנינו (seif 4), אין מבטלין and שוגג / מזיד (seif 5), חוזר וניעור (seif 6), the trace in a utensil in שפע (seif 7). The contemporary responsa apply these rules to today's kitchens and industry.

10. פסיקת האשכנזים — the Ashkenazi psika

Note on method. The same remark applies: these streams extend the Rama and the nossei kelim; they are cited as landmarks of psika, to be confirmed with a Rav.

The Ashkenazi psika begins from the Rama and the acharonim (Chochmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD, and for the 20th century the Iggrot Moshe). Three features of the Rama dominate this siman: (1) חתיכה נעשית נבילה for every issur (seif 3, "ואין נוהגין כן"); (2) one does not nullify even a דרבנן (seif 6, "ואין לזוז"); (3) the חוזר וניעור as soon as one adds of the first prohibition (seif 6). The Shach refines: אין מבטלין is rabbinic, and only שוגג / מזיד counts (not the נודע / לא נודע distinction).

Concrete case	Ashkenazi orientation (to be verified)
A piece that absorbed a prohibition	חתיכה נעשית נבילה for every issur (Rama, seif 3; referral to siman 92); it does not combine to nullify.
A rabbinic prohibition with nothing to nullify it	One does not מרבה עליו and does not nullify (Rama, seif 6, "ואין לזוז"); one follows the deoraita.
Adding first prohibition to a nullified mixture	חוזר וניעור — the whole becomes forbidden again; one needs 60 again against the sum (Rama, seif 6).
שוגג / מזיד	Only this criterion decides (Shach); not the נודע / לא נודע distinction.

Chabad — only through real sources. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav does not cover Yoreh De'ah; there is therefore no "Da'at HaRav" on siman 99. For the Chabad practice on these questions, one refers to the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek (cited here itself by the Pitchei Teshuva s.k. 5 on מזיד) and to the Sefer HaMinhagim Chabad when they explicitly address a point — and one refrains from attributing to the Admur HaZaken a ruling he did not write here.

11. מקרים מודרניים — today's kitchen and industry

How siman 99 sheds light on practice. Four tools of the siman serve to decide modern cases: (1) אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה — never dilute deliberately (seif 5); (2) כמו שבא לפנינו — evaluate the dish as it is (seif 4); (3) חוזר וניעור — the prohibition that reawakens (seif 6); (4) the משהו בכלי בשפע — the utensils (seif 7).

Modern case	Tool of the siman	Orientation (to be confirmed with the Rav)
"Diluting" a non-kosher product to render it permitted	Seif 5 (אין מבטלין)	Forbidden לכתחילה; done deliberately (מזיד) → forbidden for the one who did it and for the one for whom, forbidden to sell it to a Jew; by mistake (שוגג) → permitted.
Food industry: a forbidden ingredient drowned in a large volume	Seif 4-5 (כמו שבא לפנינו; nullification)	One evaluates 60 on what is before us; but adding permitted on purpose to nullify is מבטל לכתחילה. The טעם (rabbinic) / ממשות יבש ביבש (deoraita) distinction of the Noda BiYhouda is decisive.
A nullified prohibition, to which one adds of the same prohibition	Seif 6 (חוזר וניעור)	It reawakens → one needs 60 again against the sum; but the nullified that passes into a new heter (milk→water→meat) does not reawaken.
A utensil that absorbed a trace of prohibition	Seif 7 (כלי בשפע)	Pot / jug / bottle (always בשפע) → permitted לכתחילה even ben yomo; bowl or small vessel → forbidden, גזירה.
The prohibition's bones in a large permitted pot	Seif 1-2 (עצמות)	Dry non-edible bones → count with the permitted; marrow and tender bones → with the prohibition; raw vs cooked-alone changes the count; in הפסד, leniency (Rama).

Le-ma'asse. These situations blend questions of fact — nullified deliberately or by mistake, the real volume before us, first or new prohibition, the nature of the utensil, tender or dry bones — that only your Rav can decide upon seeing the case. The golden rule: never dilute a prohibition to reach the 60, and reconstruct precisely what fell, into what, and what was added. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables

טבלה — the rules of combination and nullification, in practice

Case	Measure (for us)	Note
The prohibition's bones (dry / shells)	Count with the permitted	Not food; marrow and tender bones → with the prohibition
Bones of a piece cooked alone first	Count with the prohibition	They absorbed נבילה meat (seif 2)
A piece that absorbed a prohibition	חנ״נ — does not combine (Rama)	Din (Mehaber): would count on the permitted side
Evaluating the dish	כמו שבא לפנינו	מין במינו: also the absorbed; כלה מחמת האור does not count
Nullifying a prohibition deliberately	Forbidden (אין מבטלין)	שוגג → permitted; מזיד → forbidden for the מבטל and the one for whom
Rabbinic prohibition with nothing to nullify it	One does not nullify (Rama)	"ואין לזוז"; Mehaber: מרבה עליו
Adding first prohibition to a nullified mixture	חוזר וניעור — becomes forbidden again	Migration to a new heter → does not reawaken
Trace in a pot / jug (בשפע)	Permitted לכתחילה even ben yomo	Bowl (sometimes בדבר מועט) → forbidden, גזירה

טבלה — who says what (the nossei kelim of the siman)

Posek	Decisive contribution (anchored in the corpus)
Mehaber (seifim 1-7)	עצמות מצטרפין and the marrow / the body of the pot; raw / cooked; the imbued piece that counts (other prohibitions); כמו שבא לפנינו, רוטב / קיפה / מין במינו; אין מבטלין and שוגג / מזיד; מרבה עליו דרבנן; the trace in a utensil in שפע.
Rama (הגה)	יש מחמירין not to combine the bones, but הפסד → one is lenient (seif 1); חתיכה נעשית נבילה for every issur, referral to 92 (seif 3); one does not nullify even a דרבנן — "ואין לזוז" (seif 6); חוזר וניעור, and the milk→water→meat limit (seif 6); "ואין נוהגין כן" on נודע / לא נודע (seif 5).
Shach (Siftei Kohen)	s.k. 1: tender bones → prohibition, dry bones / shells → permitted (Raah, Ran, Or Zaroua, Bach); אין מבטלין is rabbinic; disputes the נודע / לא נודע distinction, only שוגג / מזיד counts (with Pri Hadash, Minchat Yaakov).
Taz (Turei Zahav)	s.k. 1 (non-edible bones + moisture; Bach's question); s.k. 2 (גוף הקדירה, חרסית / בלוע; pot already forbidden, 98); s.k. 4 (כמו שבא לפנינו: Rashba/Ran vs Rash"al); s.k. 5 (מין בשאינו מינו deoraita; אחזוקי איסורא לא מחזקינן); s.k. 7 (אין מבטלין except other intent, 84:13); s.k. 8-10 (שוגג / מזיד; למי שנתבטל בשבילו if he knew and was pleased); s.k. 12-14 (מרבה עליו דרבנן; מן האיסור הראשון, 98; חוזר וניעור ≠ ladle 94, איסור חדש); s.k. 15 (the trace in a utensil, קנקנים, Rashba T"H 126).
Pri Megadim (פר״מ)	Refines the parameters of the evaluation (מין במינו / שאינו מינו, what combines) and of nullification לכתחילה, in line with the Taz and the Shach.
Pitchei Teshuva (פתחי תשובה)	s.k. 1 (Shach like the Ran on the bones; Mahari Halevi disputes; בישול / מליחה, כחוש / שמן); s.k. 3 (אין מבטלין is rabbinic — Shach; Noda BiYhouda: טעם rabbinic, ממשות יבש ביבש ברוב deoraita); s.k. 5 (מזיד: asking "lomdim" ≠ שוגג — Tzemach Tzedek); s.k. 6 (Shach disputes נודע / לא נודע); s.k. 7 (מרבה עליו: Magen Avraham, Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

טבלה — contemporary streams of psika (outside the corpus, to be verified)

Sephardic: the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer, Yehaveh Da'at), Yalkut Yossef; Or LeTzion (Rav Ben-Tzion Abba Shaul). They extend the Mehaber: combining the non-edible bones, evaluating כמו שבא לפנינו, אין מבטלין and its leniency for שוגג; more inclined to follow the din (not to extend חנ״נ beyond bassar be-halav) and to be lenient in הפסד גדול.

Ashkenazi: Iggrot Moshe (Rav Moshe Feinstein) and the acharonim (Chochmat Adam, Aruch HaShulchan YD). They extend the Rama: חתיכה נעשית נבילה for every issur, one does not nullify even a דרבנן, חוזר וניעור as soon as one adds of the first prohibition.

Chabad: no Shulchan Aruch HaRav on the YD. One cites only real sources — responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, the Sefer HaMinhagim — when they explicitly address the point.

Sefaria links (text and nossei kelim)

Shulchan Aruch YD 99: 99:1 · 99:4 · 99:5 · 99:7
Shach (Siftei Kohen): 99 s.k. 1 · 99 s.k. 6
Taz (Turei Zahav): 99 s.k. 1 · 99 s.k. 15
Pitchei Teshuva: 99 s.k. 1 · 99 s.k. 3

👈 הלכה למעשה — the golden rule of this level

In substance, retain the two yesodot: what combines in the count (non-edible bones with the permitted, marrow and the body of the pot not) and אין מבטלין איסור לכתחילה.
In practice, one never dilutes a prohibition deliberately to reach the 60: שוגג → permitted, מזיד → forbidden (for the מבטל and the one for whom), forbidden to sell it to a Jew.
חוזר וניעור: a nullified prohibition reawakens if one adds to it of the first prohibition; and a trace in a utensil always used בשפע (pot, jug) is permitted לכתחילה even ben yomo.
And for any real case — tender or dry bone, שוגג or מזיד, first or new prohibition, the nature of the utensil — halakha le-ma'asse goes through your Rav. For the application to your precise situation, consult your Rav (or a competent Dayan).

← Level 3 — Synthesis ↑ Siman צ״ט — contents

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
פסק והלכה למעשה בדין העצמות וביטול איסור לכתחילה · סימן צ״ט · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha le-ma'asse

⚠️ This content is for study purposes. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are landmarks, not a personal psak. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.

📖Join the khavruta