Here's a great tip:
Enter your email address and we'll send you our weekly magazine by email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life, week after week. And it's free.
Oh, and don't forget to like our facebook page too!

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 14, Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 15, Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 16

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 14

1

The minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of any of the forbidden foods in the Torah is [the size of] an average olive.1 [This applies] whether for lashes, kerait, 2 or death at the hand of heaven.3We already explained4 that anyone who is liable for kerait or death at the hand of heaven for [partaking of] forbidden food, should receive lashes.

א

כל איסורי מאכלות שבתורה שיעורן בכזית בינוני בין למלקות בין לכרת בין למיתה בידי שמים וכבר ביארנו שכל המחוייב כרת או מיתה בידי שמים על מאכל לוקה:

2

This measure, as all the other measurements, is a halachah conveyed by Moses from Sinai. It is forbidden by Scriptural Law to eat even the slightest amount of a forbidden substance. Nevertheless, one receives lashes only for an olive-sized portion. If one partakes of any amount less than this measure, he is given stripes for rebellious conduct.5

ב

ושיעור זה עם כל השיעורין הלכה למשה מסיני הם ואסור מן התורה לאכול כל שהוא מדבר האסור אבל אינו לוקה אלא על כזית ואם אכל כל שהוא פחות מכשיעור מכין אותו מכת מרדות:

3

The measure of "the size of an olive" that we mentioned does not include what is between one's teeth.6 What is between one's gums,7 however, is included in what one swallows, for his palate benefited from an olive-sized portion of food.

Even if one ate half of an olive-sized portion, vomited it, and then ate the same portion that was half the size of an olive that he vomited, he is liable.8 For the liability is for the benefit one's palate receives from a forbidden substance.

ג

כזית שאמרנו חוץ משל בין השינים אבל מה של בין החניכים מצטרף למה שבלע שהרי נהנה גרונו מכזית אפילו אכל כחצי זית והקיאו וחזר ואכל אותו חצי זית עצמו שהקיא חייב שאין החיוב אלא על הנאת הגרון בכזית מדבר האסור:

4

When an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, a nevelah, piggul,9notar,10 or the like was left in the sun and was reduced in volume, one who eats it is not liable.11

If, afterwards, one left it in the rain and it expanded, one is liable for either kerait or lashes.12 If, originally, it was smaller than an olive-sized portion and then expanded to the size of an olive, it is forbidden to partake of it, but one is not liable for lashes for it.13

ד

כזית חלב או נבלה או פגול או נותר וכיוצא בהן שהניחו בחמה ונתמעט האוכלו פטור חזר והניחו בגשמים ונתפח חייבין עליו כרת או מלקות היה פחות מכזית מבתחלה ונתפח ועמד על כזית אסור ואין לוקין עליו:

5

We already explained14 that all of the forbidden substances in the Torah are not combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with the exception of the meat of a nevelah and the meat of a trefe15 and the prohibitions involving a nazirite,16 as explained in the appropriate places. The five types of grain,17 their flour, and the dough made from them all can be combined with each other to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to the prohibition against leaven on Pesach, the prohibition against partaking of chadash before the offering of the omer,18 and the prohibitions involving the second tithe and the terumot.

ה

כבר ביארנו שכל איסורין שבתורה אין מצטרפין זה עם זה לכזית חוץ מבשר נבלה עם בשר טרפה ואיסורי נזיר שיתבארו במקומן וחמשת מיני תבואה וקמחין שלהן והבציקות שלהן הכל מצטרפים לכזית בין לאיסור חמץ בפסח בין לאיסור חדש מלפני העומר בין לאיסורי מעשר שני ותרומות:

6

It appears to me that all [produce] from which we are required to separate terumah and tithes can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive with regard to [the prohibition against] tevel because a single prohibition is involved. To what can the matter be compared? To [meat from] the corpse of an ox, the corpse of a sheep, and the corpse of a deer which can be combined to reach the minimum measure of the size of an olive as we explained.19

ו

יראה לי שכל החייב בתרומה ומעשרות מצטרף לכזית בטבל מפני שהוא שם אחד הא למה זה דומה לנבלת השור ונבלת השה ונבלת הצבי שהן מצטרפין לכזית כמו שביארנו:

7

When a person partakes of a large amount of food from a forbidden substance, he is not liable for lashes or kerait for every olive-sized portion he eats. Instead, he is liable once for all he ate.20 If, however, the witness gave him a warning for every olive-sized portion, he is liable for every warning even though he ate it in one sitting, without interruption.21

ז

האוכל אכילה גדולה מדבר אסור אין מחייבין אותו מלקות או כרת על כל כזית וכזית אלא חיוב אחד לכל האכילה ואם היו העדים מתרים בו בשעת אכילה על כל כזית וכזית חייב על כל התראה והתראה ואף על פי שהיא אכילה אחת ולא הפסיק:

8

[The following rules apply when] a person partakes of a barley-corn or mustard-seed-sized portion of any forbidden food, waits, and then partakes of another mustard-seed-sized portion whether inadvertently or intentionally. If he waited from the beginning to the end the time it takes to eat a portion of bread with relish the size of three eggs22 [or less], everything [he ate] is combined.23 He is liable for kerait, lashes, or a sacrifice as if he ate an olive-sized portion at one time. If he waits a longer time from the beginning to the end, [the small portions] are not combined. Since he completed the olive-sized portion only in a longer time than k'dei achilat p'ras, he is not liable even if he did not wait at all, but continued eating mustard-seed-sized portion after mustard-seed-sized portion.

ח

האוכל כשעורה או כחרדל מאחד מכל מאכלות האסורים ושהה מעט וחזר ואכל כחרדל וכן עד שהשלים כזית בין בשוגג בין במזיד אם שהה מתחלה ועד סוף כדי אכילת שלש ביצים יצטרף הכל והרי הוא חייב כרת או מלקות או קרבן כמו שאכל כזית בבת אחת ואם שהה יתר מזה מתחלה ועד סוף אע"פ שלא שהה ביניהן אלא אכל כחרדל אחר כחרדל הואיל ולא השלים כזית אלא ביתר מכדי אכילת פרס אינן מצטרפין ופטור:

9

Similar [laws apply when] a person who drinks a revi'it24of ordinary gentile wine little by little, swallows liquefied leaven on Pesach or fat little by little, or drinks blood25 little by little. If he waits from the beginning until the end the time it takes to drink a revi'it, [all of the sipping] is combined.26 If not, it is not combined.27

ט

וכן השותה רביעית של סתם יינם מעט מעט או שהמחה את החמץ בפסח או את החלב וגמעו מעט מעט או ששתה מן הדם מעט מעט אם שהה מתחלה ועד סוף כדי שתיית רביעית מצטרפין ואם לאו אין מצטרפין:

10

One is not liable for partaking of any of the prohibited foods unless one partakes of them in a manner in which one derives satisfaction with the exception of a mixture of meat and milk and mixed species grown in a vineyard. [The rationale is that with regard to these prohibitions, the Torah] does not use the term "eating,"28but instead conveys the prohibition against partaking of them in other terms. [With regard to meat and milk, it uses] the term "cooking" and [with regard to mixed species grown in a vineyard, it uses the term] "become hallowed."29 [This implies] that they are forbidden even when one does not derive satisfaction.

י

כל האוכלין האסורין אינו חייב עליהם עד שיאכל אותן דרך הנאה חוץ מבשר בחלב וכלאי הכרם לפי שלא נאמר בהן אכילה אלא הוציא איסור אכילתן בלשון אחרת בלשון בשול ובלשון הקדש לאסור אותן ואפילו שלא כדרך הנייה:

11

What is implied? When one liquefied fat and swallowed it when it was so hot that his throat was burned from it, he eat raw fat,30 mixed bitter substances like gall or wormwood into wine31 or into a pot [where meat from] a nevelah [is cooking] and he partook of it while they were bitter,32 or he ate a forbidden foot after it became decayed, spoiled, and unfit for human consumption, he is not liable.33 If, by contrast, he mixed a bitter substance into a a pot [where meat and milk are cooking] or into wine from a vineyard where mixed species are growing and partook of it, he is liable.

יא

כיצד הרי שהמחה את החלב וגמעו כשהוא חם עד שנכוה גרונו ממנו או שאכל חלב חי או שעירב דברים מרים כגון ראש ולענה לתוך יין נסך או לתוך קדרה של נבלה ואכלן כשהן מרין או שאכל אוכל האסור אחר שהסריח והבאיש ובטל מאוכל אדם הרי זה פטור ואם עירב דבר מר בתוך קדרה של בשר בחלב או ביין כלאי הכרם ואכלו חייב:

12

When a person partakes of one of the forbidden food in a frivolous manner or as one who is acting purposelessly, he is liable. Even though he did not intend to actually partake of the food, since he derived pleasure, it is considered as if he intended to actually partake of the food.34 When, [by contrast,] a person is forced to derive [forbidden] pleasure, if he focuses his intent on it, he is liable. If he does not, it is permitted.35

יב

האוכל מאכל ממאכלות האסורות דרך שחוק או כמתעסק אף על פי שלא נתכוון לגוף האכילה הואיל ונהנה חייב כמי שמתכוון לעצמה של אכילה והנייה הבאה לו לאדם בעל כרחו באיסור מכל האיסורין אם נתכוון אסור ואם לא נתכוון מותר:

13

When a person partakes of a forbidden food because of desire or because of hunger, he is liable.36 If he was wandering in the desert and he has nothing to eat but a forbidden substance, it is permitted, because of the danger to his life.37

יג

האוכל מאכל אסור לתיאבון או מפני הרעב חייב ואם היה תועה במדבר ואין לו מה יאכל אלא דבר איסור הרי זה מותר מפני סכנת נפשות:

14

When a pregnant woman smells a forbidden food [and is overcome by desire for it],38 e.g., consecrated meat or ham, she should be given some of the gravy. If her mind becomes settled, that is commendable. If not, we feed her less than the forbidden measure39 [of the meat itself]. If her mind does not become settled, we feed her until her mind becomes settled.

יד

עוברה שהריחה מאכל אסור כגון בשר קדש או בשר חזיר מאכילין אותה מן המרק אם נתיישבה דעתה מוטב ואם לאו מאכילין אותה פחות מכשיעור ואם לא נתיישבה דעתה מאכילין אותה עד שתתיישב דעתה:

15

Similarly, when a sick person smells food that contains vinegar or the like, [i.e.,] substances that arouse a soul's [desire], he is governed by the same laws that apply to a pregnant woman.40

טו

וכן החולה שהריח דבר שיש בו חומץ וכיוצא בו מדברים שמערערין את הנפש דינו כעוברה:

16

When a person is overcome by severe hunger,41 he may be fed forbidden food immediately until his eyesight clears. We do not seek permitted food. Instead, we hurry to feed him what is available.42

We feed him substances bound by more lenient prohibitions first. If his sight clears, that is sufficient. If not, we feed him the substances bound by the more severe prohibitions.

טז

מי שאחזו בולמוס מאכילין אותו דברים האסורים מיד עד שיאורו עיניו ואין מחזרין על דבר המותר אלא ממהרין בנמצא ומאכילין אותו הקל הקל תחלה אם האירו עיניו דיו ואם לאו מאכילין אותו החמור:

17

What is implied? If there is tevel43 and a nevelah, we feed him the nevelah first. {The rationale is] that [partaking of] tevel is punishable by death [at the hand of heaven].44If [the choice is between] a nevelah and produce that grows on its own during the Sabbatical year, we feed him the produce, for it is forbidden [only] by Rabbinic decree, as will be explained in Hilchot Shemitah.45

If [the choice is between] tevel and produce grown during the Sabbatical year,46 we feed him the produce grown during the Sabbatical year.47 If [the choice is between] tevel and terumah, if it is impossible to make the tevel acceptable,48 we feed him the tevel. [The rationale is] that it is not sanctified as terumah is. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

יז

כיצד היו לפנינו טבל ונבלה מאכילין אותו נבלה תחלה שהטבל במיתה נבלה וספיחי שביעית מאכילין אותו ספיחי שביעית שאסורין מדברי סופרים כמו שיתבאר בהלכות שמטה טבל ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית טבל ותרומה אם אי אפשר לתקן הטבל מאכילין אותו טבל שאינו קדוש כתרומה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

18

We have already explained49 that one prohibition does not take effect when another prohibition is in effect unless both of the prohibitions take effect at the same time,50 the latter prohibition forbids additional entities,51 or the [latter] prohibition encompasses other entities.52

Accordingly, [it is possible] for there to be a person who eats one olive-sized portion of forbidden food and yet, he will be liable for five [sets of] lashes for it, provided he was warned for all five prohibitions that accumulated.

What is implied? For example, on Yom Kippur, a person who was ritually impure ate an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat from a consecrated animal that remained after its prescribed time.53He is liable for lashes because he partook of forbidden fat, notar, because he ate on Yom Kippur,54 because he partook of consecrated food while ritually impure, and because he derived benefit from consecrated food, thus [violating the prohibition of] me'ilah.

יח

כבר ביארנו שאין איסור חל על איסור אלא אם היו שני האיסורין באין כאחת או שהיה איסור מוסיף או איסור כולל לפיכך יש אוכל כזית אחד ולוקה עליו חמש מלקיות והוא שהתרו בו בחמשה איסורין שנתקבצו בו כיצד כגון טמא שאכל כזית חלב שנותר מן המוקדשים ביום הכפורים לוקה משום אוכל חלב ומשום אוכל נותר ומשום אוכל ביוה"כ ומשום טמא שאכל קדש ומשום שנהנה מן הקדש ומעל:

19

Why do these prohibitions fall on each other? Because although it was forbidden to partake of the fat of this animal, it was permitted to benefit from it. Once he consecrated it, it became forbidden to benefit from the fat. Since the prohibition to benefit from it was added to it, the prohibition against [benefiting from] consecrated articles became added to it.

Although this fat was forbidden to an ordinary person, it was still permitted to be offered to the One on High. When it became notar, since it became forbidden to the One on High, [that] prohibition was added to an ordinary person.

This person was permitted to partake of the meat of the animal,55 although he was forbidden to partake of its fat. When he became impure, since its meat became forbidden an additional prohibition was added to its fat. When Yom Kippur commenced, all food became included [in the prohibition], since this prohibition affects non-consecrated food, it adds a prohibition to this fat. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

יט

ולמה חל כאן איסור על איסור שבהמה זו היה חלבה אסור באכילה ומותר בהנייה הקדישה נאסר חלבה בהנייה ומתוך שנוסף בו איסור הנייה נוסף עליו איסור קדשים ועדיין היה חלב זה מותר לגבוה ואסור להדיוט נעשה נותר מתוך שנוסף בו איסור לגבוה נאסר להדיוט והאוכל הזה היה מותר בבשר הבהמה ואסור בחלבה נטמא נאסר אף בבשרה נוסף לו איסור על החלב בא יום הכפורים כלל כל האוכלין ומתוך שנאסר אף בחולין נוסף איסורו בחלב זה וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

Footnotes
1.

The measure of "the size of an olive" cannot be determined by measuring an average olive today. Instead, this refers to a measure established by our Sages and is the subject of debate by later Rabbinic authorities. The Pri Chadash (Orach Chayim 486) states that the Rambam considers an olive as one-third the size of an egg with its shell (17.3 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:13, 24 grams according to Chazon Ish). Tosafot, Chullin 103a, differs and defines an olive as one-half the size of a shelled egg (25.6 grams according to Shiurei Torah 3:12, 36 grams according to Chazon Ish). In practice, with regard to questions of Scriptural Law, the more stringent opinion should be followed. With regard to questions of Rabbinic Law, one may rely on the more lenient view.

2.

Literally, the soul's being cut off. This involves premature death in this world (before the age of 50, Mo'ed Kattan 28a) and the soul not meriting a portion in the world to come (Hilchot Teshuvah 8:1).

3.

Premature death before the age of 60 (Mo'ed Kattan, loc. cit.).

4.

See Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:7.

5.

The punishment given for the violation of Rabbinic commandments or Scriptural Laws for which there is no specific punishment outlined.

6.

Shiurei Torah suggests including slightly more than 3 grams in the measure of an olive-sized portion to compensate for this factor.

7.

Even though it was not swallowed.

8.

This refers to a situation in which the person ate the vomited food a second time shortly after he ate it the first time. To explain: For a person to be liable, he must eat not only a specific amount (an olive-sized portion), but he must eat it in a specific time: k'dai achilas p'ras, as explained in Halachah 8.

9.

A sacrifice which the priest thought to have its blood or limbs offered on the altar after the time when they should be offered or have its meat eaten after the time it should be eaten (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 13:1).

10.

Sacrificial meat that remained after the time when it is required to be eaten (op cit. 13:3).

11.

As Menachot 54b states, the size of a portion of food at the time one partakes of it determines whether he is liable or not.

12.

For, at the outset, it was the size of an olive.

13.

For its natural size is not an olive.

14.

Chapter 4, Halachot 16 and 17.

15.

For a trefe is the beginning of a nevelah, as stated there.

16.

For they are all grape products, as stated in Hilchot Nazirut 5:3.

17.

Wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Since they are all grain, they are combined to reach the minimum measure.

18.

See Chapter 10 for a definition of this prohibition.

19.

Chapter 4, Halachah 7.

The Ra'avad qualifies the Rambam's statement, maintaining that it applies only when the types of produce consumed have a similar taste. The Radbaz, however, justifies the Rambam's view.

20.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nazir 6:4), the Rambam states that this leniency applies only with regard to an earthly court. God, however, holds the person liable for each forbidden measure he eats.

21.

For the warnings create a distinction between the food eaten before and afterwards.

22.

Our translation is based on Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 16:6.

23.

This is one of the fundamental concepts with regard to the mitzvot and prohibitions concerning eating. Just as there is a minimum amount, a k'zayit (an olive-sized portion), which one must eat for the mitzvah or prohibition to be fulfilled; so, too, there is a minimum measure of time, k'dei achilat p'ras, in which that amount of food must be eaten. If one takes a longer time to eat the prohibited food, his eating is not significant, like one who eats less than the minimum amount.

Rashi (Pesachim 44a ) offers a different view and maintains that this measure is defined as the time it takes to eat four eggs. Shiurei Torah mentions several different opinions from between four minutes until nine minutes for this figure.

24.

The standard liquid measure that applies with regard to the Torah's mitzvot and prohibitions.

25.

The commentaries have noted that in Chapter 6, Halachah 1, the Rambam mentioned that the minimum measure for which one is liable for partaking of blood is an olive-sized portion and question why in this context, a revi'it is mentioned. It is possible to explain that here the subjects are slightly different, for we are not speaking about the minimum amount for which one is liable, but rather the minimum time period. The commentaries, however, do not see this as a significant enough point.

26.

For if one prolongs his drinking over a longer period, his deed is not considered significant.

27.

The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh note that other authorities do not accept the concept of "the time it takes to drink a revi'it" and even with regard to prohibitions that involve drinking speak of k'dei achilat p'ras. Indeed, the Rambam himself mentions that measure with regard to drinking within the context of the laws of ritual purity (Hilchot Sha'ar Avot HaTumah.

The Radbaz explains the Rambam's ruling here, stating that with regard to the prohibitions against eating, what is important is that one feel significant satisfaction. If he prolongs his drinking longer than that, he will not feel satisfaction from it. See also the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Hilchot Shivitat Esor 2:4 which discusses this issue.

28.

When, however, the Torah uses the term "eating," that implies that one derives satisfaction in the ordinary manner one derives benefit from food (see the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh to Chapter 8, Halachah 16). Only then is one liable. Needless to say, it is forbidden by Rabbinic Law to partake of a forbidden substance even if one does not derive benefit.

29.

As explained in Chapter 10, Halachah 6, "becom[ing] hallowed" means being "set apart and forbidden."

30.

Which does not have a pleasant taste.

31.

This concept also applies with regard to wine used as a libation, for, Deuteronomy 32:38, the prooftext from which this prohibition is derived, also mentions "eating" [Minchat Chinuch (mitzvah 111)].

32.

I.e., even if the unappetizing element of the food is not dependent on them, but on a foreign substance.

33.

This refers to the concept referred to as notein taam lifgam, giving an unfavorable taste. Our Rabbis extend this concept further, explaining that any pot which has not been used for non-kosher food for a day no longer causes the pot to be forbidden according to Scriptural Law, because the forbidden food has already lost its flavor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:5)]. See also Chapter 15, Halachot 28-31.

34.

Generally, a person who violates a transgression without intent is not liable (Shabbat 22a). Here, however, an exception is made, because the person is deriving physical benefit.

35.

Even though he derived pleasure, since he did not act voluntarily and did not desire the forbidden pleasure, he is not held liable.

36.

Although either his desire or hunger causes him pain, he is not considered as if he was compelled to partake of the forbidden food.

37.

As stated in Hilchot Yesodei Torah 5:6, all prohibitions are superceded by danger to life without the exception of idolatry, murder, and forbidden sexual relations.

38.

A pregnant woman may have severe cravings for food with an attractive aroma. Our Sages feared that if she were not given some of the food she desired, she might miscarry and perhaps even her own life would be endangered. See Yoma 82b.

39.

I.e., less than an olive-sized portion as stated in Halachah 1. Since one is not liable unless one partakes of an olive-sized portion within k'dei achilat pras (see Halachah 8), if we do not fear the situation is overly dangerous, the woman can be fed this minimal amount in intervals. See Hilchot Sh'vitat Asor 2:9, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 617:2).

40.

Since he is sick, his condition is precarious and we are concerned that his craving may place his life in danger. See Ketubot 61a.

41.

This refers to a state of infirmity that overcomes a person because of lack of nourishment. He becomes dizzy, faint, and unable to focus his eyes.

42.

Out of fear that the delay may be crucial to his life. Similarly, we do not try first giving him the gravy and then smaller portions as in the previous halachot (Kessef Mishneh). Needless to say, if kosher food is available, there is no reason to give him non-kosher food.

43.

Produce from which terumah and the tithes have not been separated.

44.

This applies when the terumot have not been separated from the produce. If the terumot have been separated, but the tithes have not been separated, the prohibition is of the same degree of severity as partaking of a nevelah. See Chapter 10, Halachot 19-20.

45.

Hilchot Shemitah ViYovel 4:2.

46.

I.e., produce grown in the Sabbatical year that remains after the time when it is supposed to be disposed of (Rashi, Yoma 83a).

47.

For the prohibition against eating produce cultivated in the Sabbatical year stems from a positive commandment. This is considered as more lenient than a prohibition stemming from a negative commandment, because there is no punishment involved.

48.

Some interpret this as referring to a situation where there is no one who knows how to separate the terumot present. Rashi (loc. cit.) interprets this as referring to a situation where the sick person must eat the entire amount of produce available. It is preferable not to separate the terumot. For even though he will be eating less of a forbidden substance, the prohibition will be more severe because terumah is sanctified.

49.

Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:8-9.

50.

Chapter 5, Halachah 5, gives an example of this concept. When a person rips a limb from a living animal which causes the animal to become trefe, he is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions: the prohibition against eating flesh from a living animal and the prohibition against partaking of an animal that is trefe, for both prohibitions take effect at the same time.

51.

This concept is exemplified in this and the following halachah. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 2, and Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 17:9-10.

52.

This concept is exemplified in Chapter 8, Halachah 6: A person who partakes of a gid hanesheh, a sciatic nerve, of an animal which is trefe is liable for two transgressions. Since when the animal became trefe, its entire body became encompassed in the prohibition, that prohibition also encompasses the gid even though it was prohibited beforehand.

53.

Every sacrifice of which we are allowed to partake has a certain time span - a day and a night or two days and a night - in which we are allowed to partake of it. After that time span, it becomes forbidden because of the prohibition referred to as notar (Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 18:10.

54.

The Rambam also states this concept in Hilchot Shegagot 6:4. There he emphasizes that to be liable for eating on Yom Kippur, one must add another small portion of food. For one is not liable for eating on Yom Kippur unless he consumes a date-sized portion. That additional portion, however, need not involve all these different prohibitions.

55.

Before it became notar.

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 15

1

When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor,1 its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].2

א

דבר אסור שנתערב בדבר מותר מין בשאינו מינו בנותן טעם ומין במינו שאי אפשר לעמוד על טעמו יבטל ברוב:

2

What is implied? When the fat of the kidneys3 falls into beans and becomes dissolved, the beans should be tasted.4 If the taste of fat cannot be detected, they are permitted. If [not only] the taste, [but also] the substance of the fat is present, they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. If the flavor could be detected, but there is no substance, they are forbidden by Rabbinic Law.5

ב

כיצד חלב הכליות שנפל לתוך הגריסין ונמוח הכל טועמין את הגריסין אם לא נמצא בהן טעם חלב הרי אלו מותרין ואם נמצא בהם טעם חלב והיה בהן ממשו הרי אלו אסורין מן התורה נמצא בהן טעמו ולא היה בהן ממשו הרי אלו אסורין מדברי סופרים:

3

What is meant by its substance? For example, there was enough forbidden fat for there to be an olive-sized portion [of fat] in each portion the size of three eggs from the mixture. If a person eats a portion of beans the size of three eggs, he is liable for lashes for they contain an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, for [not only] the flavor, [but also] the substance of [the forbidden fat] is present.6 If one eats less than a portion the size of three eggs [of the mixture], one is liable for stripes for rebellious conduct as prescribed by Rabbinic Law.

Similarly, if there was less than an olive-sized portion of [forbidden] fat in every portion the size of three eggs, even if the flavor of fat is detectable and he eats the entire pot, he is not liable for lashes7 [as prescribed by Scriptural Law], only stripes for rebellious conduct.

ג

כיצד הוא ממשו כגון שהיה מן החלב כזית בכל שלש ביצים מן התערובת אם אכל מן הגריסין האלו כשלש ביצים הואיל ויש בהן כזית מן החלב לוקה שהרי טעם האיסור וממשו קיים אבל פחות משלש ביצים מכין אותו מכת מרדות מדבריהם וכן אם לא היה בתערובת כזית בכל שלש ביצים אע"פ שיש בהן טעם חלב ואכל כל הקדירה אינו לוקה אלא מכת מרדות:

4

[The following laws apply when] the fat of the kidneys8 falls into the fat from the fat tail9 and the entire [mixture] becomes dissolved.10 If there is twice as much fat from the fat tail as fat of the kidneys, the entire mixture is permitted according to Scriptural Law.11 Even when a piece of [meat from] a nevelah becomes mixed with two pieces of [meat from] a ritually slaughter animal, everything is permitted according to Scriptural Law.12 Nevertheless, according to Rabbinic Law, everything13 is forbidden until the forbidden substance will be nullified because of the tiny proportion [of the entire mixture it represents] to the extent that it is not significant and it is as if it does not exist, as will be explained.14

ד

נפל חלב כליות לחלב האליה ונמוח הכל אם היה חלב האליה כשנים בחלב הכליות הרי הכל מותר מן התורה אפילו חתיכת נבלה שנתערבה בשתי חתיכות של שחוטה הכל מותר מן התורה אבל מדברי סופרים הכל אסור עד שיאבד דבר האסור מעוצם מיעוטו ולא יהיה דבר חשוב שעינו עומדת כמו שיתבאר:

5

Into what quantity [of a permitted substance] must a forbidden substance be mixed for it to be considered nullified because of its tiny proportion? [Each forbidden substance according to] the measure the Sages specified for it. There are substances that are nullified in a mixture 60 times its size, others in a mixture 100 times its size, and still others in a mixture 200 times its size.

ה

ובכמה יתערב דבר האסור ויאבד בעוצם מיעוטו כשיעור שנתנו בו חכמים יש דבר ששיעורו בששים ויש ששיעורו במאה ויש ששיעורו במאתים:

6

Thus we learn from this that [the following laws apply] with regard to all of the prohibited substances in the Torah, whether those punishable by lashes or punishable by kerait or substances from which it is forbidden to benefit that become mixed with permitted substances. If the substances are of different types, [the mixture is forbidden] if the flavor is detectable.

If the substances are of the same type and thus it is impossible to detect the flavor [of the forbidden substance], we measure [whether there was] 60, 100, or 200 [times the amount of permitted substances]. The only exceptions are wine poured as a libation to a false deity, because of the severity [of the prohibition against] worship of a false deity15 and tevel, because it can be corrected.16 For that reason, even the slightest mixture of them with a substance of their type is forbidden. If they become mixed with substances of a different type, the matter is dependent on whether their flavor is detectable.

ו

נמצאת למד שכל איסורין שבתורה בין איסורי מלקות בין איסורי כרת בין איסורי הנייה שנתערבו במאכל המותר מין בשאינו מינו בנותן טעם מין במינו שאי אפשר לעמוד על הטעם שיעורו בששים או במאה או במאתים חוץ מיין נסך מפני חומרת עכו"ם וחוץ מטבל שהרי אפשר לתקנו ומפני זה אוסרין במינן בכל שהן ושלא במינן בנותן טעם כשאר כל האיסורין:

7

What is implied? When several barrels of wine fell over a drop of wine that was poured as a libation, the entire mixture is forbidden, as will be explained.17 Similarly, if a cup of wine which is tevel becomes nixed into a barrel [of wine], the entire [barrel] is considered tevel until the amount of terumah and tithes that are appropriate to be separated18 are separated as will be explained in the appropriate place.19

ז

כיצד טיפת יין נסך שנפלו עליה כמה חביות של יין הכל אסור כמו שיתבאר וכן כוס של יין טבל שנתערב בחבית הכל טבל עד שיפריש תרומות ומעשרות הראויין לתערובת כמו שיתבאר במקומו:

8

[Related concepts apply with regard to] produce of the Sabbatical year.20 If [such produce] becomes mixed with [produce of] the same type, the tiniest amount [causes the mixture to be considered bound by the laws of the produce of the Sabbatical year].21 [If it becomes mixed with produce of] another type, [the ruling depends on whether] its flavor can be detected. [Nevertheless,] it is not considered as one of the substances forbidden by Scriptural Law. For this mixture is not forbidden. Instead, one is obligated to eat the entire mixture in keeping with the holiness of the produce of the Sabbatical year, as will be explained in the appropriate place.22

ח

פירות שביעית אף על פי שאם נתערבו במינן בכל שהוא ושלא במינן בנותן טעם אינן בכלל איסורי תורה שאין אותה התערובת אסורה אלא חייב לאכול כל התערובת בקדושת שביעית כמו שיתבאר במקומו:

9

Although chametz on Pesach is forbidden by Scriptural Law, it is not governed by these general principles,23 for this mixture is not forbidden forever. For after Pesach, the entire mixture will be permitted, as we explained.24 Therefore the slightest amount [of chametz] causes [a mixture] to become forbidden,25 whether [it becomes mixed] with a substance of its own type or of another type.

ט

חמץ בפסח אע"פשהוא מאיסורי תורה אינו בכללות אלו לפי שאין התערובת אסורה לעולם שהרי לאחר הפסח תהיה כל התערובת מותרת כמו שביארנו לפיכך אוסר בכל שהוא בין במינו בין שלא במינו:

10

The same law26 applies when new grain becomes mixed with old grain before [the offering of] the omer. Even the tiniest amount causes [the entire mixture] to become forbidden. For there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted. For after [the offering of] the omer, the entire mixture is permitted.27

Similarly, whenever there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted, e.g., consecrated entities,28 the second tithe,29 or the like,30 our Sages did not mention a measure [in which it could be nullified]. Instead, even if one [of the forbidden substance] becomes mixed with several thousand31 [times that amount of a permitted substance], it is not nullified. [The rationale is that] there is a way that the prohibition can be released.32 [This principle applies] even when the prohibition stems from Rabbinic decree, e.g., an article set aside or born on a festival.33

י

והוא הדין לתבואה חדשה שנתערבה בישנה מלפני העומר אוסרת בכל שהוא שהרי יש לה מתירין שלאחר העומר יותר הכל וכן כל דבר שיש לו מתירין ואפילו היה איסורו מדבריהם כגון איסור מוקצה ונולד ביום טוב לא נתנו בו חכמים שיעור אלא אפילו אחד בכמה אלפים אינו בטל שהרי יש דרך שיותר בה כגון הקדש ומעשר שני וכיוצא בהן:

11

With regard to orlah, mixed species grown in a vineyard, fat, blood, and the like, our Sages fixed a measure [that would enable mixtures to be nullified]. Similarly, our Sages fixed a measure with regard to terumot, for there is no way the can be permitted for all people.34

יא

אבל הערלה וכלאי הכרם וחלב ודם וכיוצא בהן וכן תרומות נתנו חכמים בהן שיעור שאין בהן דרך היתר לכל אדם:

12

It appears to me35 that even there is a factor that will cause a substance to become permitted, if that substance becomes mixed with a substance of a different type and its flavor is not detectable, it is permitted. The fact that there is a factor that will cause the substance to become permitted does not [cause the prohibition to be] more severe than tevel. [For tevel] can be corrected,36 and yet when it [becomes mixed with a substance] of a different type, [it is permitted if] its flavor cannot be detected, as explained.37 One should not raise a question with regard to chametz on Pesach [where such leniency is not granted. A distinction can be made.] For with regard to chametz, the Torah [Exodus 12:20] states: "Do not eat any leavened substance." For this reason, [our Sages] were stringent with regard to it, as we explained.38

יב

יראה לי שאפילו דבר שיש לו מתירין אם נתערב בשאינו מינו ולא נתן טעם מותר לא יהיה זה שיש לו מתירין חמור מטבל שהרי אפשר לתקנו ואף על פי כן שלא במינו בנותן טעם כמו שביארנו ואל תתמה על חמץ בפסח שהתורה אמרה כל מחמצת לא תאכלו לפיכך החמירו בו כמו שביארנו:

13

These are the measures which the Sages established: Terumah, terumat ma'aser39 challah, and bikkurim become nullified [when the mixture is] 101 times the [original] amount. [In addition,] one must separate [a portion and give it to a priest].40 [All of these sacred foods] are combined one with the other.41 Similarly, a slice of the showbread becomes nullified when mixed with slices of ordinary bread [if] the mixture is 101 times the original amount.42

What is implied? When a se'ah of flour from one of the above43- or one se'ah from all of them [combined] - falls into 100 se'ah of ordinary [flour] and [the flour] became mixed together,44 one should separate one se'ah from the mixture for the se'ah that fell in originally. The remainder is permitted to all people.45 If it fell into less than 100 se'ah, the entire mixture is meduma.46

יג

ואלו הן השיעורין שנתנו חכמים התרומה ותרומת מעשר והחלה והבכורים עולין באחד ומאה וצריך להרים ומצטרפין זה עם זה וכן פרוסה של לחם הפנים לתוך פרוסות של חולין עולין באחד ומאה כיצד סאה קמח מאחד מאלו או סאה מכולם שנפלה למאה סאה קמח של חולין ונתערב הכל מרים מן הכל סאה אחת כנגד סאה שנפלה והשאר מותר לכל אדם נפלה לפחות ממאה נעשה הכל מדומע:

14

Orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard become nullified [when the mixture is] 201 times the [original] amount. The [two prohibitions] are combined one with the other,47 and it is not necessary to separate any thing.48

What is implied? When a revi'it of wine which is orlah or which [came from grapes] grown together with mixed species in a vineyard - or one revi'it was combined from both prohibited substances - falls into 200 revi'iot of wine, the entire mixture is permitted. It is not necessary to separate anything. If it falls into less than 200, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].49

יד

הערלה וכלאי הכרם עולין באחד ומאתים ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואינו צריך להרים כיצד רביעית של יין ערלה או כלאי הכרם או שהיתה הרביעית מצטרפת משניהם שנפלה לתוך מאתים רביעיות של יין הכל מותר ואינו צריך להרים כלום נפלה לפחות ממאתים הכל אסור בהנייה:

15

Why is it necessary to separate [a measure of] terumah and not a measure of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard? Because terumah is the property of the priests. Accordingly, any terumah which the priests are not concerned with, e.g., terumah from [low-grade] figs,50 carobs, and Edomite barley, need not be separated.51

טו

ולמה צריך להרים התרומה ולא ירים ערלה וכלאי הכרם שהתרומה ממון כהנים לפיכך כל תרומה שאין הכהנים מקפידין עליה כגון תרומת הכליסין והחרובין ושעורין שבאדום אינו צריך להרים:

16

Why was the measure doubled for orlah and mixed species grown in a vineyard? Because it is forbidden to benefit from them.52

Why did [the Sages] choose the figure of 100 for terumot? For terumat ma'aser is one hundredth of the entire crop,53 and yet it causes the entire crop to be "sanctified,"54 as [Numbers 18:29] states: "its sacred part."55 Our Sages said: "An entity which must be separated from it sanctifies it if it returns to it.

טז

ולמה כפלו שיעור ערלה וכלאי הכרם מפני שהן אסורין בהנייה ולמה סמכו על שיעור מאה בתרומות שהרי תרומת מעשר אחד ממאה ומקדש הכל שנאמר את מקדשו ממנו אמרו חכמים דבר שאתה מרים ממנו אם חזר לתוכו מקדשו:

17

The measure for all of the other prohibitions of the Torah,56 e.g., the meat of crawling animals, teeming animals, fat, blood, and the like is sixty times [the original amount].

What is implied? When an olive-sized portion of the fat of the kidneys falls into sixty times the size of an olive of the fat from the fat tail, the entire mixture is permitted. If it falls into less than sixty [that amount], the entire mixture is forbidden. Similarly, if a portion of forbidden fat the size of a barley-corn, [the mixture] must contain permitted substances the size of sixty barley-corns.57 Similar [laws apply] with regard to other prohibitions.

Similarly, if the fat of the gid hanesheh falls into a pot of meat,58we require sixty times its amount. The fat of the gid itself is included in this sum.59 Although the fat of the gid is prohibited [only] by Rabbinic Law, as we explained,60 since the gid hanesheh is considered a creation in its own right,61 [our Sages] ruled stringently concerning it as if it was forbidden by Scriptural Law. The gid itself is not measured and it does not cause other substances to be forbidden, because the gid does not impart flavor.62

יז

שאר איסורין שבתורה כולן כגון בשר שקצים ורמשים וחלב ודם וכיוצא בהן שיעורן בששים כיצד כזית חלב כליות שנפל לתוך ששים כזית מחלב האליה הכל מותר נפל לפחות מששים הכל אסור וכן אם נפל כשעורה חלב צריך שיהיה שם כמו ששים שעורה וכן בשאר אסורין וכן שומן של גיד הנשה שנפל לקדרה של בשר משערין אותו בששים ואין שומן הגיד מן המנין ואע"פ ששומן גיד הנשה מדבריהם כמו שביארנו הואיל וגיד הנשה בריה בפני עצמה החמירו בו באיסורי תורה והגיד עצמו אין משערין בו ואינו אוסר שאין בגידים בנותן טעם:

18

When, by contrast, an udder is cooked with meat, we require sixty times its amount and the udder is considered as part of the sum.63 [The rationale is that] since [the prohibition against] the udder is Rabbinic in origin, [our Sages] were lenient in establishing a measure.64

יח

אבל כחל שנתבשל עם הבשר בששים וכחל מן המנין הואיל והכחל מדבריהם כמו שביארנו הקלו בשיעורו:

19

[The following laws apply when] an egg in which a chick is found65is cooked together with eggs that are permitted. If there are 61 and it,66 they are permitted. If, however, there are only sixty [permitted eggs], the entire mixture is forbidden. [The rationale is that the chick] is a creation in its own right,67 [our Sages] made a distinction and added to its [required] measure.

יט

ביצה שנמצא בה אפרוח שנשלקה עם ביצים המותרות אם היתה עם ששים ואחת והיא הרי הן מותרות היתה עם ששים בלבד נאסרו הכל מפני שהיא בריה בפני עצמה עשו היכר בה והוסיפו בשיעורה:

20

If, however, the egg of an non-kosher fowl was cooked together with the eggs of kosher fowl, it does not cause them to become forbidden.68

If [the eggs were opened and] mixed together or the egg of a non-kosher fowl or the egg of a fowl that is trefe become mixed with other eggs,69 the required measure is 60.70

כ

אבל ביצת עוף טמא שנשלקה עם ביצי עוף טהור לא אסרה אותם ואם טרף אלו עם אלו או שנתערבה ביצת עוף טמא או ביצת טריפה עם ביצים אחרות שיעורן בששים:

21

What is the source because of which the Sages relied on the measure of 60? For the portion given [to the priest] from the ram brought by a Nazirite,71i.e., the foreleg, is one sixtieth of the remainder of the ram. It is cooked together with it and does not cause it to be forbidden,72 as [Numbers 6:19] states: "And the priest shall take the cooked foreleg from the ram."

כא

ומנין סמכו חכמים על שיעור ששים שהרי המורם מאיל נזיר והיא הזרוע אחד מששים משאר האיל והיא מתבשלת עמו ואינה אוסרת אותו שנאמר ולקח הכהן את הזרוע בשלה מן האיל:

22

[The following rules apply when] two substances of the same type, [one permitted and one forbidden,] and a [third] entity become mixed together, e.g., there was a pot with fat from the fat tail and beans and fat from the kidneys fell into it. The entire [mixture] dissolved and became a single entity. We view the fat from the fat tail and the beans as a single entity and we measure the fat from the kidneys against it. If the ratio was one to sixty, it is permitted. For it is impossible to detect the taste.73

כב

מין במינו ודבר אחר שנתערבו כגון קדרה שהיה בה חלב אליה וגריסין ונפל לתוכה חלב הכליות ונמחה הכל ונעשה גוף אחד רואין את חלב האליה ואת הגריסין כאילו הן גוף אחד ומשערין חלב הכליות כגריסין וכאליה אם היה אחד מששים מותר שהרי אי אפשר כאן לעמוד על הטעם:

23

The same principle applies when terumot are mixed together [with other substances, some of the same type and some of a different type], their measure is 100. And the measure of mixed species from a vineyard and orlah is 200.

כג

והוא הדין לתרומות שנתערבו לשערן במאה וכלאי הכרם או ערלה לשער אותן במאתים:

24

When we calculate the measure of permitted substances with regard to all prohibitions, whether the measure is 60, 100, or 200, we include the soup, the spices, everything that is in the pot, and what the pot has absorbed after the prohibited substance fell according to our estimation.74 For it is impossible to know the exact amount which the pot absorbed.

כד

כשמשערין בכל האיסורין בין בששים בין במאה בין במאתים משערין במרק ובתבלין ובכל שיש בקדרה ובמה שבלעה קדרה מאחר שנפל האיסור לפי אומד הדעת שהרי אי אפשר לעמוד על מה שבלעה בצמצום:

25

It is forbidden to nullify a substance75 forbidden by Scriptural76 Law as an initial and preferred measure. If, however, one nullified it, the mixture is permitted.77 Nevertheless, our Sages penalized such a person and forbade the entire mixture.78 It appears to me that since this is a penalty, we forbid this mixture only to the person79 who transgressed and nullified the prohibited substance.80 For others, however, the entire mixture is permitted.

כה

אסור לבטל איסורין של תורה לכתחלה ואם ביטל הרי זה מותר ואעפ"כ קנסו אותו חכמים ואסרו הכל ויראה לי שכיון שהוא קנס אין אוסרין תערובת זו אלא על זה העובר שביטל האיסור אבל לאחרים הכל מותר:

26

What is implied? If a se'ah of orlah falls into 100 se'ah [of permitted produce], the entire [mixture] is forbidden. One should not bring another 100 se'ah and join [the entire quantity] together so that [the forbidden substance] will be nullified because of the presence of 201 times the original amount. If, however, he transgressed and did so, the entire [mixture] is permitted.

With regard to a prohibition forbidden by Rabbinic decree,81 we do nullify a prohibition as an initial and preferred measure.

כו

כיצד הרי שנפלה סאה של ערלה לתוך מאה סאה שהרי נאסר הכל לא יביא מאה סאה אחרות ויצרף כדי שתעלה באחד ומאתים ואם עבר ועשה כן הכל מותר אבל באיסור של דבריהם מבטלין האיסור לכתחלה:

27

What is implied? If milk fell into a pot that contains fowl and imparted its flavor to the food, one may add other fowl to the pot until the flavor [of the milk] is no longer discernable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

כז

כיצד חלב שנפל לקדרה שיש בה בשר עוף ונתן טעם בקדרה מרבה עליו בשר עוף אחר עד שיבטל הטעם וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

28

We already explained82 that if a forbidden substance imparts its flavor to a permitted substance, the entire mixture is not permitted. When does the above apply? [When the flavor imparted] improves [the flavor of the permitted food]. If, however, the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance and impairs it, it is permitted.83

[This applies] provided it detracts from its flavor from the beginning until the end. If, however, it detracted from its flavor at the outset, but ultimately improved it or improved it initially, even though it will ultimately detract from it, [the mixture] is forbidden.84

כח

כבר ביארנו שאם נתן דבר האסור טעמו בדבר המותר נאסר הכל בד"א בשהשביחו אבל אם פגם זה האסור למותר והפסיד טעמו הרי זה מותר והוא שיהיה פוגם מתחלה ועד סוף אבל אם פגם בתחלה וסופו להשביח או השביח בתחלה אף על פי שסופו לפגום הרי זה אסור:

29

Who will taste the mixture?85 If terumot were mixed with ordinary crops, a priest should taste the mixture.86 If the flavor of the terumah is discernible, the entire mixture is considered as miduma. In Hilchot Terumot,87 the laws pertaining to [produce that is] miduma will be explained.

כט

ומי יטעום את התערובת אם היה המעורב תרומות עם החולין טועם אותן הכהן אם היה טעם התרומה ניכר הכל מדומע ובהלכות תרומות יתבאר דין המדומע:

30

If [the mixture involved] meat and milk, wine poured as a libation, wine that was orlah, or [made from grapes that grew together with] mixed species in a vineyard that fell into honey, or the meat of crawling animals or teeming animals that were cooked with vegetables and the like, a gentile should taste [the mixture].

We rely on his word.88 If he says: "It does not have the flavor [of the forbidden substance]," or he says: "It [imparted] its flavor, but that flavor is bad and it detracts [from the flavor of the permitted substance," the entire [mixture] is permitted, provided it will not ultimately improve it, as we explained.89 If there is no gentile to taste it, we rely on the measures of 60,90 100, or 200.91

ל

ואם היה בשר בחלב או יין נסך ויין ערלה וכלאי הכרם שנפלו לדבש או בשר שקצים ורמשים שנתבשל עם הירק וכיוצא בהן טועם אותן העכו"ם וסומכין על פיו אם אמר אין בו טעם או שאמר יש בו טעם ומטעם רע הוא והרי פגמו הכל מותר והוא שלא יהיה סופו להשביח כמו שביארנו ואם אין שם עכו"ם לטעום משערין אותו בשיעורו בששים או במאה או במאתים:

31

When a rat falls into beer or vinegar, we require a measure of 60, for we suspect that it imparted its flavor to the beer or the vinegar and it improves it.92When, however, it falls into wine, oil, or honey,93 it is permitted, even if it imparts its flavor, for the [rat's] flavor detracts [from the flavor of these substances]. For [these substances] must all have a pleasant fragrance and rat meat spoils their aroma and detracts from their flavor.

לא

עכבר שנפל לשכר או לחומץ משערין אותו בששים שאנו חוששין שמא טעמו בשכר ובחומץ משביח אבל אם נפל ליין או לשמן או לדבש מותר ואפילו נתן טעם מפני שטעמו פוגם שכל אלו צריכין להיותן מבושמים וזה מסריחן ומפסיד טעמן:

32

When a goat is roasted in its fat, it is forbidden to eat from even the tip of its ear. [The rationale is that] the fat permeates through all its limbs, improves [their taste], and imparts flavor. Accordingly, if [a goat] is lean and possessed only a meager amount of fat on its kidneys and digestive organs,94 i.e., one in sixty-one [of the entire animal], one may cut away [the meat] and eat it95 until he reaches the fat.

Similarly, when the thigh [of an animal] is roasted96 together with the gid hanesheh, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it until he reaches the gid [hanesheh].97 [This], he should cast away. Similarly, if an animal was roasted whole without removing the forbidden strands of tissue and membranes, one may cut away [the meat] and eat it.98 When he reaches a forbidden substance, he should cast it away. There is no need to calculate the ratio [of this forbidden tissue to the meat,] for this [forbidden] tissue does not impart flavor.

לב

גדי שצלאו בחלבו אסור לאכול אפילו מקצה אזנו שהחלב נבלע באיבריו והוא משביחו ונותן בו טעם לפיכך אם היה כחוש ולא היה בו חלב כליות ולא חלב קרב אלא מעט כאחד מששים קולף ואוכל עד שמגיע לחלב וכן ירך שצלאה בגיד הנשה שבה קולף ואוכל עד שהוא מגיע לגיד ומשליכו וכן בהמה שצלאה שלימה ולא הסיר לא חוטין ולא קרומות האסורות קולף ואוכל וכיון שיגיע לדבר אסור חותכו ומשליכו שאין בגידים בנותן טעם כדי לשער בהן:

33

One should not roast ritually slaughtered meat with the meat of a nevelah or the meat of a non-kosher species in one oven, even though they do not touch each other.99 If one roasted them together, [the kosher meat] is permitted. [This applies] even if the forbidden meat was very succulent and the permitted meat was lean. For an aroma does not cause a substance to become forbidden; only the flavor of a forbidden substance does.

לג

אין צולין בשר שחוטה עם בשר נבלה או בהמה טמאה בתנור אחד ואף על פי שאין נוגעין זה בזה ואם צלאן ה"ז מותר ואפילו היתה האסורה שמנה הרבה והמותרת רזה שהריח אינו אוסר ואינו אוסר אלא טעמו של איסור:

34

When the meat of a ritually slaughtered animal100 was mixed together101 with the meat of a nevelah that was salted, the [kosher] meat becomes prohibited,102 for the concentrated [juices] of the nevelah are absorbed in the kosher meat. It is impossible to detect their flavor or to calculate the quantity of the forbidden substance.103

When the meat of a unsalted species of kosher fish was mixed together with the meat of a species of unkosher fish that was salted, the [kosher] fish becomes prohibited because of the [non-kosher] brine. If, however, it was the kosher fish that was salted and the non-kosher fish was unsalted, the salted fish does not become forbidden. For even though the unsalted [fish] absorbs [the brine] of the salted one, it does not absorb it to the degree that it will cause it to discharge [its own brine].

When a non-kosher fish was pickled with a kosher fish, the entire mixture is forbidden unless the ratio of kosher fish to non-kosher is 200:1.104

לד

בשר נבלה מליח שנבלל עמו בשר שחוטה הרי זה נאסר מפני שתמצית הנבלה נבלעת בגוף בשר השחוטה ואי אפשר לעמוד כאן לא על הטעם ולא על השיעור וכן בשר דג טמא מליח שנבלל עמו דג תפל טהור נאסר מפני צירו אבל אם היה המליח טהור והתפל דג טמא לא נאסר המליח [אע"פ] שהתפל בולע מן המליח [אינו בולע כל כך שיחזור ויפלוט] דג טמא שכבשו עם דג טהור הכל אסור אא"כ היה הטמא אחד ממאתים מן הטהור:

Footnotes
1.

Because it tastes the same as the permitted substance.

2.

According to Scriptural Law. As stated in Halachot 4-5, the Rabbis enforced more stringent requirements.

3.

Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5).

4.

By a gentile (see the notes to Halachah 30 and Chapter 9, Halachah 8) for a discussion of why the gentile's word is accepted.

5.

See Tosafot (Chullin 98b) which mentions a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if the principle "the flavor of an entity is equivalent to its substance" is of Rabbinic or Scriptural origin.

6.

The Rambam shares the perspective of Tosafot (Avodah Zarah 67b) who maintains that if there is more than an olive-sized portion of fat in a portion of food k'dei achilat p'ras (the size of three eggs), its substance is considered as present even though it is dissolved and not discernable. Rashi differs and maintains that as long as the fat is dissolved, it is considered as if the substance of the forbidden entity is not present.

7.

Even though he may eat an olive-sized portion of forbidden fat, he will not have eaten it in the required time (the time it takes to eat three eggs, as stated in Chapter 14, Halachah 8) for one to be held liable. The concentration of the forbidden fat is too small for that to happen.

8.

Which is forbidden (Chapter 7, Halachah 5).

9.

Which is permitted.

10.

Since both are fat, the mixture is considered as being of the same substance.

11.

For according to Scriptural Law, as long as the majority is kosher, the mixture may be eaten. Indeed, there is no need for there to be twice as much kosher fat as non-kosher fat. A simple majority is sufficient.

12.

With regard to the mixture of fat, there is greater reason for leniency, for there is no longer any non-kosher fat that exists as an independent entity, it is all mixed together with the kosher fat. In this instance, the meat from the nevelah exists as an independent entity, it is just that we have no way of detecting which of the pieces it is (Radbaz).

13.

In all instances when forbidden substances are mixed with kosher substances. See Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) which rules leniently and allows one to rely on Scriptural Law in certain situations. See the notes to Halachah 20.

14.

In the following halachot.

15.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 5:8), the Rambam cites Deuteronomy 13:18: "No trace of the condemned should cling to your hand" as evidence that even the slightest amount is forbidden. See Chapter 16, Halachah 28, for a leniency that is granted with regard to this restriction.

16.

The terumot and the tithes can be separated from it, causing it to be permitted. See Halachah 10.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (ibid.), the Rambam cites the rationale given by Avodah Zarah 73b: Just as one kernel of grain can serve as terumah and correct the entire crop; so, too, one kernel of grain from which terumah was not separated can cause an entire crop to be forbidden. The rationale given by the Rambam here has its source in the Jerusalem Talmud (Shivi'it 6:3).

17.

Chapter 16, Halachah 28.

18.

I.e., the terumah and tithes that would have been required to have been separated from the tevel originally. In this context, the fact that it became mixed with other wine is not significant.

19.

Hilchot Terumah, Chapter 13.

20.

The Rambam feels it necessary to mention this point, because his source, Avodah Zarah 73b mentions the produce of the Sabbatical year together with the two prohibited substances mentioned above. The Rambam clarifies that the comparison is not entirely correct, because the produce of the Sabbatical year is not forbidden.

21.

The Ra'avad mentions that this concept applies only until the time it is required to destroy the produce of the Sabbatical year. After that time, that produce is forbidden to be eaten and hence, is considered like other forbidden substances.

22.

Hilchot Shemitrah ViYovel, chs. 4-7.

23.

I.e., although even the tiniest amount of chametz causes an entire mixture to be forbidden, chametz was not mentioned by Avodah Zarah 73b together with wine poured as a libation and tevel. The reason is that the prohibition of the mixture of chametz is motivated by a different rationale (Kessef Mishneh).

24.

See Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 1:5 which states that a mixture of chametz and another substance is permitted after the Pesach holiday.

25.

As explained in the following halachah and notes. See also Halachah 12.

26.

The Radbaz states that the comparison is to tevel and not to chametz on Pesach. For like tevel, if it becomes mixed with a different substance, it is permitted if its flavor cannot be detected. There are special stringencies applied with regard to chametz, as stated in Halachah 12 (Radbaz).

27.

See Chapter 10, Halachah 2.

28.

For they can be redeemed (Radbaz).

29.

For they can be eaten in Jerusalem or their holiness can be transferred to money (Radbaz).

30.

E.g., Bikkurim; see the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Bkkurim 2:2).

31.

Our Sages (Beitzah 3b) state it is not nullified when mixed with 1000 times the amount of kosher substances. The Rambam's wording clarifies that 1000 is not an upper limit. No matter how many times more of the permitted substance there is, the mixture is forbidden.

32.

Hence, this option should be taken rather than relying on the nullification of the forbidden substance.

33.

As explained in Hilchot Sh'vitat Yom Tov 1:19 states that when a person sets an object aside before the holiday with the intent that he will not use it on the holiday, he may not change his mind and use it on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as muktzeh.

Halachah 1:20 states that an egg laid on a holiday following the Sabbath was prepared on the Sabbath, as it were. Therefore it may not be used on the holiday. This prohibition is referred to as nolad. Both of these prohibitions are of Rabbinic origin. Halachah 1:21 states that if such an egg becomes mixed with other eggs, they are all forbidden.

34.

I.e., a mixture of terumah could be eaten in a permitted manner by a priest. Nevertheless, since there is no way it could be permitted to an ordinary person, our Sages were not stringent (Kessef Mishneh).

Both the Kessef Mishneh and the Radbaz ask: It is possible to have to have terumah permitted by making a statement of regret concerning its separation before a wise man. If so, seemingly, it should be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner. The Radbaz explains that a wise man who can nullify the separation of terumah may not always be found. The Kessef Mishneh states that since this is not the common practice, a substance may not be considered as an object that could be eaten in a permitted manner for this reason.

35.

This term indicates a conclusion deduced by the Rambam without an explicit prior Rabbinic source. There are others, including Rav Yitzchak Alfasi and Rav Moshe HaCohen, who differ and maintain that since the mixture could be eaten in a permitted manner, the above stringencies apply. The Ra'avad, however, states that this concept is explicitly stated in the Mishnah. He does not, however, mention which mishnah. The Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh offer different hypotheses as to the Ra'avad's intent and why the Rambam did not accept it.

36.

By separating the appropriate terumot and tithes.

37.

Halachah 6.

38.

Halachah 9.

39.

The terumah which the Levites offer from the tithes they are given.

40.

Although the prohibition is negated, we are still concerned with the fact that property due the priest is not given to him, as stated in Halachah 15.

41.

I.e., as stated in the conclusion of the halachah, if two of these substances fall into the same accumulation of permitted substances, it is necessary to have 100 times their combined size.

42.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 6:24 where he states that the showbread is not nullified. He explains that in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim, the Rambam is speaking about pieces of the showbread that are ritually pure. Hence the entire mixture should be eaten by the priests. (Note the Radbaz who questions how the priests could eat the mixture.) Here, by contrast, we are speaking about pieces of the showbread that are impure. If the showbread was a significant part of the mixture, the entire mixture would have to be burnt. Since it is not significant, we considered its existence negated.

43.

Terumah, terumat ma'aser challah, or bikkurim.

44.

If, however, the sacred substances are distinct, they must be separated from the ordinary substances.

45.

It does not have to eaten with attention to the laws of terumah.

46.

This term refers to a mixture of terumah or other sacred substances with ordinary substances. The mixture must be sold to priests (at the price of terumah) with the exception of the original sacred amount (Hilchot Terumah 13:2).

47.

Although they are separate and unrelated prohibitions, since it is forbidden to benefit from both of them and we derive the laws pertaining to one from the laws pertaining to the other, we rule that they may be combined (Orlah 2:1).

48.

As explained in the following halachah, in this instance, one is not causing the priests a loss.

49.

The Ra'avad questions the Rambam's ruling, objecting to the decision that it is forbidden to benefit from the mixture. (He maintains that although partaking of the mixture is forbidden, one should be able to sell it to a gentile with the exception of the value of the forbidden substance. For, he maintains, it is never forbidden to benefit from a mixture that is not inherently forbidden.) The Radbaz justifies the Rambam's view.

50.

Our translation is based on the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 11:4).

51.

For the priests will not be concerned about its loss.

52.

Therefore they were treated more stringently. The Radbaz emphasizes that they are compared to terumah and not to other forbidden substances for the root kodesh is used with regard to them.

53.

For it is one tenth of a tenth.

54.

I.e., "forbidden."

55.

As the Rambam continues to explain, the Jerusalem Talmud (Orlah 2:1) offers a non-literal interpretation of this phrase, understanding it as meaning "the one who sanctifies it."

56.

With this wording, the Rambam also eliminates those prohibitions of Rabbinic origin, which have a smaller measure as stated in the following halachah.

57.

Although there is not enough of the forbidden substance for a person to be liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, unless there is 60 times the amount of forbidden fat, the mixture is forbidden according to Scriptural Law (see Chulin 98a).

58.

The prohibitions are considered of the same type, because the taste of the fat is not distinct from that of the meat (Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi to Chulin 98a).

59.

As is the law with regard to Rabbinic prohibitions as stated in the following halachah.

60.

Chapter 8, Halachah 1.

61.

As our Sages ruled [Chulin 100a; Chapter 16, Halachah 6; quoted by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1)], a forbidden being which is a creation in its own right is never forbidden. Therefore they ruled more stringently. In this instance, the gid hanesheh itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling is not applied, nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied.

62.

See Chapter 8, Halachah 6.

63.

Thus instead of requiring 61 times the forbidden substance (60 plus the substance itself) all that is required is 60 (59 and the substance itself).

64.

See Chapter 9, Halachot 12-13. As explained in the notes there, the Ra'avad and the Rashba offer a different rationale for this ruling, explaining that since the meat of the udder is acceptable, we include it in the reckoning of 60. Thus in contrast to other instances where 60 times the amount of the forbidden substance is required, here, we require only 59. According to his view, we cannot extrapolate from this ruling to other Rabbinic prohibitions.

65.

Such an egg is forbidden to be eaten (see Chapter 3, Halachah 8).

66.

I.e., a total of 62.

67.

As stated in the notes to the previous halachah, in this instance, the forbidden substance itself will be removed. Hence the full stringency of our Sages' ruling concerning an entity that is a creation in its own right is not applied. Nevertheless, in recognition of the serious of the prohibition involved, this stringency is applied. See the notes to the following halachah where a rationale cited by other authorities is mentioned.

68.

Here we are talking about eggs that are cooked in their shells. When an egg contains a chick, the chick will impart its flavor to the entire pot. When, by contrast, eggs are cooked in their shells, they do not impart flavor (Chulin 97b). The non-kosher egg must be removed from the mixture. This, however, can sometimes be done, because the appearance of non-kosher eggs may differ from that of kosher eggs (Chapter 3, Halachah 18).

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 86:6) differs and states that if a substantial loss will not be caused, we should be stringent and follow the same ruling with regard to all eggs. If, however, there will be a substantial loss, even he counsels to rely on the more lenient views.

69.

For, at times, non-kosher eggs are not distinguishable from kosher eggs (ibid.).

70.

I.e., the mixture is judged as an ordinary instance in which kosher food becomes mixed with non-kosher food. According to the Rambam, the non-kosher egg is not a creation that is forbidden in its own right.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 86:5) differs and rules that we require 61 kosher eggs in this instance as well. The Ramban explains that the reason is that not all eggs are the same size and by adding an extra egg, we make certain that we have the necessary amount. (He uses this rationale to explain the law stated in the previous halachah as well.) The Siftei Cohen 86:15 offers a different rationale, stating that an egg itself is considered a creation in its own right.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that there are some who would rule that 60 eggs are not necessary, for there are opinions [see Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1)] that when kosher and non-kosher entities are intermingled in a dry mixture, we rely on Scriptural Law and require only a simple majority of the kosher substances. As obvious from this ruling, the Rambam does not accept this leniency.

71.

When a Nazirite completes the days of his Nazirite vow, he brings several sacrifices. Among them is a ram brought as a peace offering. The foreleg from this offering is given to the priest and may not be eaten by an ordinary Israelite (Chulin 98a; Hilchot Nazirut 8:1-4).

72.

I.e., although this portion which is forbidden to an Israelite is cooked together with the entire ram, the Israelite is permitted to partake of the remainder of the ram. Accordingly, our Sages inferred that a similar ratio may be used when other prohibited substances are cooked with permitted substances.

73.

Because there is no significant difference between the taste of fat from the fat tail and fat from the kidneys, as indicated by Halachah 4.

74.

I.e., at that time, it absorbed both the permitted substances and the prohibited substance (Radbaz).

In his Kessef Mishneh and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:4), Rav Yosef Caro follows the view of Rashi and the Tur who maintain that we should measure the prohibited substance and the permitted substances as they are at present, for there is no way of knowing how much the pot absorbed. This stringency applies, however, only with regard to forbidden substances mixed with permitted substances of a different type. (For then the prohibition stems from Scriptural Law.) If they are of the same type (when a simple majority is required according to Scriptural Law), the Shulchan Aruch rules more leniently and accepts the Rambam's ruling.

75.

I.e., after a forbidden substance fell into a mixture, one may not add enough permitted substances that there will 60, 100, or 200 times the amount of the forbidden substance.

76.

If, however, a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law accidentally fell into a mixture, one may add enough permitted substances to nullify the prohibition, as stated in Halachah 26.

77.

Because in fact the presence of the forbidden substance has been nullified.

78.

The Siftei Cohen 99:11 explains the reason for this penalty. If we would permit him to benefit from it, we fear that if, in the future, such a situation would recur, he would instruct his servants to nullify the prohibited substances for him.

79.

Or the person whom he intended to serve after nullifying the forbidden substance. Were this not the case, he would benefit from his undesirable act (Kessef Mishneh).

80.

The Rambam's wording implies that the penalty was imposed only when he willfully nullified the existence of the forbidden substance. If he did so accidentally or inadvertently, no prohibition applies, for our Sages did not impose penalties in such situations [Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:5)].

81.

This point was not accepted by all authorities. The Ashkenazic authorities (as reflected by the ruling of Rabbenu Asher) maintain that even a Rabbinic prohibition should not be nullified as an initial and preferred measure. The Radbaz proposes an intermediate position: that the stringency should be applied only to Rabbinic prohibitions that have a source in Scriptural Law, e.g., milk and fowl, but not those enacted by the Rabbis entirely on their own initiative. This compromise, however, was not accepted. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 99:6) adopts the Rambam's position, while the Tur and the Rama follow that of Rabbenu Asher.

82.

Halachah 1.

83.

Avodah Zarah 66a derives this concept from the statements of Deuteronomy 14:21 concerning the meat of an animal that died without slaughter: "Give it to the stranger in your gate and he will partake of it." Implied is that the prohibition applies only to meat that is fit for a non-Jew to partake of. If it is not fit for the non-Jew to eat, it cannot cause a Jew's food to be forbidden.

See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:2) which states: "The impairment of the food's flavor does not have to be complete to the extent that one would be disgusted to eat it. Instead, even if it slightly detracts [from its flavor], it does not cause the mixture to become forbidden."

84.

Avodah Zarah, loc. cit. states that if initially, the flavor of a substance is improved by the addition of the forbidden substance, it becomes forbidden. The fact that ultimately the addition detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance is not sufficient to cause it to become permitted again. The Rambam draws the conclusion that ultimately if the flavor of the substance will be improved, it is also prohibited (Kessef Mishneh).

Note, however, the Siftei Cohen 103:7 who states that it is permitted to partake of a mixture after the flavor of the permitted substance was impaired, before it improved, even though one knows that ultimately, it will improve. Based on the wording of the following halachah, however, it is questionable if the Rambam would accept this conclusion.

85.

I.e., since there is a question whether the mixture is forbidden or not.

86.

For he is permitted to partake of terumot.

87.

Chs. 13 and 14.

88.

There is a difficulty with the Rambam's statements, for generally, we do not rely on the word of a gentile with regard to ritual matters. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) relies on the opinion of the Rashba quoted by the Tur, that this refers to a situation where the gentile does not know that we are relying on him, but instead makes his statements as a matter of course (masiach lifi tomo).

See also the Turei Zahav 98:2 and the Siftei Cohen 98:2 who quote views which state that an ordinary gentile is not sufficient, but instead, the intent is a gentile chef who is an expert on recognizing flavors. According to some, however, this interpretation leads to a leniency. For since he is a professional, he will not risk his professional reputation by lying to mislead a Jew. Hence, according to these views, his statements can be accepted even if they are made in response to direct questions and not as a matter of course. There are, nevertheless, authorities who differ and require even a chef to make his statements as a matter of course. Moreover, there are authorities (among them, the Radbaz and the Rama) who never accept the statements of a gentile with regard to these matters.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 98:1) states that in the present age, we do not rely on the statements of a non-Jew who tasted food to determine whether it is kosher or not.

89.

Halachah 28.

90.

For it is an accepted principle that the taste of a forbidden substance will be nullified in more than 60 times its volume.

91.

This refers to mixtures of terumot, orlah, and mixed species in a vineyard. The ruling is, however, problematic. For if we are speaking about a mixture of these substances together with different substances, then 60 times their volume will be sufficient. For the taste of all substances except spices is nullified in 60 times their volume as stated in the previous note. And if we are speaking about a mixture of substances with their own kind, the taste of the forbidden substance will not be detectable.

92.

Avodah Zarah 68b leaves unresolved the question whether the rat's flavor detracts from the flavor of beer and vinegar. Hence we rule stringently.

93.

These substances are not mentioned by the Talmud, loc. cit., but it is common knowledge that the rat's flavor will detract from their own, as the Rambam explains (Kessef Mishneh).

94.

These are prohibited by Scriptural Law.

95.

In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Caro states that, according to the Rambam, one may partake of the meat as it is. He need not scrape off or cut away its surface (kelipah or netilah). In his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 105:5), however, he rules according to the perspective of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, the Ran, and the Tur who maintain that the outer layer of the meat next to the fat itself must be cut away.

See also the ruling of the Rama (Yoreh De'ah, loc. cit.) that at present, we are not capable of differentiating which fat is considered succulent and which is considered lean. Hence, we require 60 times the amount of forbidden fat in all instances.

96.

The Kessef Mishneh emphasizes that the leniency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the animal is roasted with its gid or with the forbidden tissues. If it is cooked, more stringent rules apply.

97.

Although the fat of the gid hanesheh is prohibited, there is not enough fat to cause the other limbs of the animal to become prohibited (Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, one must cut away the outer layer of the meat next to the gid.

98.

In this instance as well, there is not a significant enough quantity of fat to cause the meat to become forbidden.

99.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 108:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling forbidding roasting the two in the same oven, but allows for certain leniencies, e.g., the oven is very large or the substances are covered.

100.

It appears that the kosher meat was unsalted. If, however, it were salted, it would not absorb the juices of the non-kosher meat, as indicated by the principle: "One that is involved in discharging its own juices does not absorb from another" (Radbaz).

101.

The commentaries note an apparent contradiction to the Rambam's rulings in Chapter 7, Halachot 17-19. The Radbaz explains that there, both the forbidden and the kosher substances were salted, while here the kosher meat was not. The Kessef Mishneh explains that here the two pieces of meat are mixed together, while there the substances were merely near each other.

102.

In this halachah, the Rambam is communicating the principle stated by Chulin 111b et al that meat which is salted is considered as if it is burning hot. It emits concentrated juices which are absorbed by other meat.

103.

I.e., no matter what the ration of the kosher meat to the non-kosher meat, the mixture is forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 70:3-4) follows the more lenient views of Rabbenu Asher, the Rashba, and the Ran who maintain that only the external surface of the kosher meat becomes forbidden. Once it is peeled off, the meat is permitted.

104.

For pickling is considered equivalent to cooking. Fish brine is considered as very powerful. Hence it requires a much larger measure than ordinary non-kosher substances. See Rav Kapach's notes to the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah (Terumot 10:8) where he writes that the Rambam changed his mind three times on this issue, twice stating more stringent views than the one stated here, before writing this view as his final conclusion.

Ma'achalot Assurot - Chapter 16

1

All the above measures given by our Sages with regard to a forbidden substance being mixed with a permitted substance of the same type apply when the forbidden substance is not a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity that is discrete and is not mixed together with or blended with the permitted substance.1If, however, [the forbidden substance] is a leavening agent, a spice, or an important entity, even the slightest amount of it causes [the entire mixture] to be forbidden.2

א

כל השיעורים האלו שנתנו חכמים לדבר האסור שנתערב במינו המותר בשלא היה הדבר האסור מחמץ או מתבל או דבר חשוב שהוא עומד כמות שהוא ולא נתערב ונדמע בדבר המותר אבל אם היה מחמץ או מתבל או דבר חשוב אוסר בכל שהוא:

2

What is implied? When yeast from wheat that is terumah falls into a dough of ordinary wheat [flour] and it is of sufficient quantity3 to cause the dough to leaven, the entire dough is considered as having been mixed with terumah.4 Similarly, if spices that are terumah fall into a pot of ordinary food [containing] the same substance,5 when [the forbidden spices] are of sufficient quantity to season [the dish], the entire [dish] is considered as having been mixed with terumah. This applies even if the ration between the yeast and the spices [to the permitted substances] is 1:1000.

Similarly, if yeast from mixed species grown in a vineyard fall into a dough or spices of orlah fall into a pot, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire [mixture].

ב

כיצד שאור של חיטין של תרומה שנפל לתוך עיסת חיטין של חולין ויש בו כדי לחמץ הרי העיסה כולה מדומע וכן תבלין של תרומה שנפלו לקדרת חולין ויש בהן כדי לתבל והן ממין החולין הכל מדומע ואף על פי שהשאור או התבלין אחד מאלף וכן שאור של כלאי הכרם לתוך העיסה או תבלין של ערלה לתוך הקדרה הכל אסור בהנייה:

3

Even the smallest amount of an important entity [that is forbidden] can cause a mixture of its own type to become forbidden. The seven entities that follow are considered as important: nuts from Perach,6 pomegranates from Baden, sealed barrels,7 beet shoots, cabbage heads, Greek squash, and loaves baked by a private person.8

ג

דבר חשוב שהוא אוסר במינו בכל שהוא שבעה דברים ואלו הן:

אגוזי פרך ורמוני בדן וחביות סתומות וחלפות תרדין וקלחי כרוב ודלעת יוונית וככרות של בעל הבית:

4

What is implied? If one pomegranate from Baden that was orlah became mixed with several thousand other pomegranates, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture.9 Similarly, if a sealed barrel of wine that is orlah or that is a product of mixed species from a vineyard that became mixed with several thousand sealed barrels, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire quantity.

ד

כיצד רמון אחד מרמוני בדן שהיה ערלה ונתערב בכמה אלפים רמונים הכל אסור בהנייה וכן חבית סתומה של יין ערלה או של כלאי הכרם שנתערבה בכמה אלפים חביות סתומות הכל אסורים בהנייה וכן שאר השבעה דברים:

5

Similarly, when a piece of meat from a nevelah or from a non-kosher species of animal, beast, fowl, or fish become mixed with several thousand other pieces of meat, the entire mixture is forbidden until one separates that piece of meat and makes certain that there is sixty times its measure.10 For if one does not separate [the forbidden piece of meat], it will continue to be present and it will not have changed.11 And this piece of meat is important to him, for he receives honor [by serving it] to guests.12

ה

וכן חתיכה של נבלה או של בשר בהמה או חיה או עוף או דג הטמאין שנתערבה בכמה אלפים חתיכות הכל אסור עד שיגביה אותה חתיכה ואחר כך ישער השאר בששים שאם לא הגביהה הרי הדבר האסור עומד ולא נשתנה והחתיכה חשובה אצלו שהרי מתכבד בה לפני האורחין:

6

The same laws apply with regard to a piece of meat [cooked] with milk13 or an ordinary animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, for it is forbidden to benefit from [the latter] according to Rabbinic decree,14 as will be explained in Hilchot Shechitah.15 Even the slightest amount of them causes [a mixture] to become forbidden until they are removed.

Similarly, when a gid hanesheh was cooked with other similar tissue or with meat, when it can be recognized, it should be removed and the remainder is permitted. For giddim do not impart flavor.16 If one cannot recognize it, the entire mixture is forbidden. For [the gid hanesheh is considered as a created being in its own right.17 Hence, it is significant; no matter how small it is, it causes [a mixture] to become forbidden.18

ו

והוא הדין בחתיכה של בשר בחלב או של חולין שנשחטו בעזרה שהרי הן אסורים מדבריהן בהנייה כמו שיתבאר בהלכות שחיטה אוסרין בכל שהן עד שיגביה אותן וכן גיד הנשה שנתבשל עם הגידין או עם הבשר בזמן שמכירו מגביהו והשאר מותר שאין בגידים בנותן טעם ואם אינו מכירו הכל אסור מפני שהוא בריה בפני עצמו הרי הוא חשוב ואוסר בכל שהוא:

7

Similarly, all living animals are significant and they never become nullified. Therefore, if an ox sentenced to be stoned to death19 becomes intermingled with 1000 oxen, a calf whose neck is to be broken20 becomes intermingled with 1000 calves, a dove selected for a metzora21 becomes intermingled with 1000 doves, or a firstborn donkey22 becomes intermingled with 1000 donkeys, it is forbidden to benefit from any of them.23With regard to other entities, even though it is customary to [sell] them by number,24 they can be nullified according to the ordinary measures.

ז

וכן כל בעלי חיים חשובין הן ואינם בטלין לפיכך שור הנסקל שנתערב באלף שוורים ועגלה ערופה באלף עגלות או צפור מצורע השחוטה באלף צפרים או פטר חמור באלף חמורים כולן אסורין בהנייה אבל שאר הדברים אע"פ שדרכן לימנות הרי אלו עולין בשיעורן:

8

What is implied?25 When a bundle of vegetables that come from mixed species grown in a vineyard are mixed with 200 bundles or an esrog which is orlah is mixed with 200 esrogim, the entire quantity is permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ח

כיצד אגודה של ירק מכלאי הכרם שנתערבה במאתים אגודות או אתרוג של ערלה שנתערב במאתים אתרוגים הכל מותר וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

9

It appears to me that every article that is significant to the inhabitants of a given place as nuts from Perach and pomegranates from Baden were significant in Eretz Yisrael in [the Talmudic] era causes a mixture to be forbidden if even the slightest amount becomes mixed in because of its importance in that time and in that era. The particular entities [referred to above] were mentioned because the slightest amount of them causes a mixture to be forbidden in every place. The same laws apply to articles similar to them in other places. It is clear that all of these prohibitions stem from Rabbinic decree.26

ט

יראה לי שכל דבר שהוא חשוב אצל בני מקום מן המקומות כגון אגוזי פרך ורמוני בדן בארץ ישראל באותן הזמנים שהוא אוסר בכל שהוא לפי חשיבותו באותו מקום ובאותו זמן ולא הוזכרו אלו אלא לפי שהן אוסרין כל שהן בכ"מ והוא הדין לכל כיוצא בהן בשאר מקומות ודבר ברור הוא שכל איסורין האלו מדבריהם:

10

If one pomegranate from a mixture [of pomegranates including a forbidden pomegranate from Baden] falls into two other [permitted] pomegranates from Baden and then one of these three pomegranates fell into other pomegranates, the latter mixture is permitted. [The rationale is that the presence of] the pomegranate from the first mixture [which fell into the second mixture] is nullified because of the majority of permitted substances.27 If, however, [a pomegranate] from the first mixture falls into 1000 pomegranates, they are all forbidden.28 [The concept that the presence of the forbidden pomegranate] was nullified because of the majority of permitted substances only when there is a multiple doubt involved:29i.e., that if one of the second mixture will fall into another place, it does not cause [that third mixture] to become forbidden. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

י

נפל רמון אחד מן התערובת הזאת לשני רמונים אחרים מרמוני בדן ונפל מן השלשה רמון אחד לרמונים אחרים הרי אלו האחרים מותרין שהרי הרמון של תערובת הראשונה בטל ברוב ואם נפל מן התערובת הראשונה רמון לאלף כולן אסורין לא נאמר בטל ברוב אלא להתיר ספק ספיקן שאם יפול מן התערובת השנייה למקום אחר אינו אוסר וכן כל כיוצא בזה:

11

If the nuts that were forbidden because of the nut that was orlah intermingled with them were cracked open, the pomegranates were taken apart, the barrels were opened, the squash was cut, or the bread was sliced after they became forbidden, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume.30 This law also applies with regard to a piece of forbidden meat31 that is minced together with other pieces and they are all [minced] in the same way, [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 60 times its volume.

יא

נתפצעו אגוזים אלו שנאסרו כולן מפני אגוז ערלה שביניהן או נתפררו הרמונים ונתפתחו החביות ונתחתכו הדלועין ונתפרסו הככרות אחר שנאסרו הרי אלו יעלו באחד ומאתים והוא הדין לחתיכת נבלה שנדוכה בכל החתיכות ונעשה הכל כמות שהיא עולה בששים:

12

It is, however, forbidden to crack the nuts, take apart the pomegranates, open the barrels after they have become forbidden so that [the presence of the forbidden entity] can be nullified if there is 201 times its volume. For, as an initial and preferred measure, we do not nullify the presence of an entity.32 If one does so, we penalize him and forbid [the entity] to him, as explained.33

יב

ואסור לפצוע האגוזים ולפרר הרמונים ולפתוח החביות אחר שנאסרו כדי שיעלו באחד ומאתים שאין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה ואם עשה כן קונסין אותו ואוסרין עליו כמו שביארנו:

13

[The following rule applies when] yeast that comes from mixed species in a vineyard and from terumah falls into dough and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] alone to cause the dough to rise, but when the two are combined, there is enough to cause the dough to rise. This dough is forbidden to an Israelite, but permitted to the priests.34

Similarly, when spices that come from terumah and from mixed species in a vineyard fall into a pot and there is not enough of either of [the forbidden substances] to spice the pot, but together there is enough of both of them to spice the pot, that pot is forbidden to an Israelite - for an entity forbidden to him spice it - and permitted to the priests.

יג

שאור של כלאי הכרם ושל תרומה שנפלו לתוך העיסה לא בזה כדי לחמץ ולא בזה כדי לחמץ ובשניהם כשיצטרפו יש בהם כדי לחמץ אותה עיסה אסורה לישראל ומותרת לכהנים וכן תבלין של תרומה ושל כלאי הכרם שנפלו לתוך הקדרה ולא באחד מהן כדי לתבל ובשניהם כדי לתבל אותה קדרה אסורה לישראל שהרי דבר האסור להם תבלה ומותרת לכהנים:

14

When there are two or three types of the same species of spice or three species of the same type, they can be combined to cause a pot to be forbidden when they spice it or when [a similar type mixture] causes dough to leaven.

What is implied? Yeast from wheat and yeast from barley are not considered as being two separate substances. Instead, since the category yeast is the same, they are considered as one substance and they can be combined to measure to see if they are sufficient to cause a dough of wheat to leaven if their combined flavor is that of wheat35 or to cause a dough of barley to leaven if their combined flavor is that of barley.

יד

תבלין שהם שנים או שלשה שמות ממין אחד או שלשה מינין משם אחד מצטרפין לתבל ולאסור וכן לחמץ כיצד שאור של חטין ושאור של שעורים הואיל ושם שאור אחד הוא אינן כמין ושאינו מינו אלא הרי הן כמין אחד ומצטרף לשער בהן כדי לחמץ בעיסה של חיטין אם היה טעם שניהם טעם חיטין או כדי לחמץ בעיסה של שעורין אם היה טעם שניהם טעם שעורים:

15

What is meant by three species of the same type? For example, river parsley, parsley that grows in meadows, and parsley that grows in gardens. Although each of them has a distinct name, since they are of one type, they can be combined to [cause a dish to be forbidden if they] spice [it].

טו

שלשה שמות ממין אחד כיצד כגון כרפס של נהרות וכרפס של אפר וכרפס של גנה אף על פי שכל אחד מהן שם בפני עצמו הואיל והם מין אחד מצטרפין לתבל:

16

[The following rules apply when] yeast that is terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard falls into dough that is already leavened or spices that are terumah or from mixed species from a vineyard fall into a pot that has already been spiced. If there is enough [of the forbidden] yeast to cause the dough to leaven if it had been unleavened or there is enough of the spices to spice the pot had it been unspiced, the entire mixture is forbidden.36 If they are of sufficient size to spice [the pot] or cause [the dough] to leaven, their presence can be nullified according to the required measure: terumah when [the mixture] is 101 times [the size of the forbidden substance] and mixed species in a vineyard when [the mixture] is 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance].

טז

עיסה מחומצת שנפל לתוכה שאור של תרומה או שאור של כלאי הכרם וכן קדרה מתובלת שנפלו לתוכה תבלין של תרומה או של ערלה ושל כלאי הכרם אם יש בשאור כדי לחמץ אילו היתה העיסה מצה ובתבלין כדי לתבל הקדרה אילו היתה תפילה הרי הכל אסור ואם אין בהם כדי לתבל ולחמץ יעלו בשיעורן תרומה באחד ומאה וערלה וכלאי הכרם באחד ומאתים:

17

Terumah can [help] cause orlah and mixed species from a vineyard to be nullified?

What is implied? When a se'ah of terumah falls into 99 [se'ah of] ordinary produce and afterwards, a half se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard falls into the entire mixture, the prohibition against orlah or mixed species in a vineyard does not apply.37For it is nullified because of the presence of 201 times [the size of the forbidden substance] even though a portion of the 201 is terumah.38

יז

התרומה מעלה את הערלה ואת כלאי הכרם כיצד סאה תרומה שנפלה לתשעה ותשעים חולין ואח"כ נפל לכל חצי סאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם אין כאן איסור ערלה ולא איסור כלאי הכרם שהרי עלה באחד ומאתים ואע"פשמקצת המאתים תרומה:

18

Similarly, orlah and mixed species from a vineyard can [help] cause terumah to be nullified?

What is implied? When 100 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 20,000 se'ah of ordinary produce, the entire mixture is thus 20,100 se'ah.39 Afterwards, a se'ah of terumah fell into every 100 se'ah, the entire [mixture] is permitted and the presence of the terumah is nullified because of the presence of 101 times [the original amount of terumah].40 [This applies] even though part of the 100 that nullify its presence are orlah or mixed species from a vineyard.

יח

וכן הערלה וכלאי הכרם מעלין את התרומה כיצד מאה סאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם שנפלו לתוך עשרים אלף של חולין נעשת כל התערובת עשרים אלף ומאה ואח"כ נפל לכל מאה סאה סאה של תרומה הרי הכל מותר ותעלה התרומה באחד ומאה ואף על פי שמקצת המאה המעלין אותה ערלה או כלאי הכרם:

19

Similarly, orlah may [help] nullify mixed species from a vineyard and mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify orlah. Mixed species from a vineyard may [help] nullify [the presence of other] mixed species from a vineyard and orlah may [help] nullify [the presence of other] orlah.

What is implied? 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fall into 40,000 se'ah of ordinary produce.41 Afterwards,42 a se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard fell into each of the 200 se'ah of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the entire mixture is permitted. Since the presence of the forbidden substance that fell into [the mixture] originally was nullified, the entire [mixture] is considered as ordinary produce that is permitted.43

יט

וכן הערלה מעלה את כלאי הכרם וכלאי הכרם את הערלה וכלאי הכרם את כלאי הכרם והערלה את הערלה כיצד מאתים סאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם שנפלו לארבעים אלף חולין ואחר כך נפל לכל מאתים סאה וסאה של ערלה או של כלאי הכרם הכל מותר שכיון שבטל האיסור שנפל תחלה נעשה הכל כחולין המותרין:

20

A garment that was dyed with shells of orlah44 should be burnt.45 If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.46 Similarly, when a dish was cooked or a loaf of bread baked with the shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, the dish or the bread must be burnt, for the benefit [from the forbidden substance] is evident.47 If it became intermingled with others, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.

כ

בגד שצבעו בקליפי ערלה ישרף נתערב באחרים יעלה באחד ומאתים וכן תבשיל שבישלו בקליפי ערלה ופת שאפאה בקליפי ערלה או בכלאי הכרם ישרף התבשיל והפת שהרי הנייתו ניכרת בהן נתערבו באחרים יעלו באחד ומאתים:

21

Similarly, when milo hasit48 of a garment was dyed with [a dye that is] orlah, and [that garment] cannot be identified, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount.49 If powdered dye that is orlah becomes mixed with powdered dye that is permitted, [its presence] may be nullified when there are 201 times the original amount. When liquid dye that is orlah becomes mixed with liquid dye that is permitted, its presence is nullified when there is a majority [of the permitted substance].50

כא

וכן בגד שארג בו מלא הסיט שצבעו בערלה ואין ידוע אי זה הוא יעלה באחד ומאתים נתערבו סמני ערלה בסמני היתר יעלו באחד ומאתים מי צבע במי צבע יבטל ברוב:

22

When an oven has been heated with shells of orlah or mixed species from a vineyard, it must be cooled off [before cooking in it]. [This applies] to both a new and an old [oven]. Afterwards, one should heat [the oven] with permitted wood.51 If one cooked in it before it was cooled, whether bread or food, it is forbidden to benefit from it. [The rationale is that] the forbidden wood increased the value of the bread or the food.52

If one removed the entire fire53 and then cooked or baked with the heat of the oven [that remained], it is permitted, for the forbidden wood is no longer present.54

כב

תנור שהסיקו בקליפי ערלה ובכלאי הכרם בין חדש בין ישן יוצן ואח"כ יחם אותו בעצי היתר ואם בישל בו קודם שיוצן בין פת בין תבשיל הרי זה אסור בהנייה יש שבח עצי איסור בפת או בתבשיל גרף את כל האש ואחר כך בישל או אפה בחומו של תנור הרי זה מותר שהרי עצי איסור הלכו להן:

23

It is forbidden to benefit from plates, cups, pots, and bottles that were fired by a potter with shells of orlah. [The rationale is] they are made new by an object from which it is forbidden to benefit.55

כג

קערות וכוסות וקדרות וצלוחיות שבישלן היוצר בקליפי ערלה הרי אלו אסורין בהנאה שהרי דבר האסור בהנאה עשה אותן חדש:

24

When bread was baked on coals from wood56 that is orlah, it is permitted. Once [the wood] becomes coals, the forbidden dimension is no longer present, even though they are still glowing.57

When a pot was cooked with shells from orlah or mixed species from a vineyard together with permitted wood,58 the food [cooked in it] is forbidden, even though [it was cooked by two factors, one forbidden and one permitted]. [The rationale is] that at the time it was cooked with the forbidden wood, the permitted wood had not been introduced. Thus part of the cooking process was performed with permitted wood and part with forbidden wood.59

כד

פת שבישלה על גבי גחלים של עצי ערלה מותרת כיון שנעשו גחלים הלך איסורן אע"פ שהן בוערות קדרה שבישל אותה בקליפי ערלה או בכלאי הכרם ובעצי היתר הרי התבשיל אסור ואף על פי שזה וזה גורם שבשעה שנתבשלה מחמת עצי איסור עדיין לא באו עצי ההיתר ונמצא מקצת הבשול בעצי היתר ומקצתו באיסור:

25

When a plant that is orlah becomes mixed together with other plants or a row of mixed species from a vineyard became mixed with other rows,60 at the outset, one should gather all [the produce].61 If [the ratio of] permitted plants to forbidden plants was 200:1 or the ratio of forbidden rows to permitted ones is 200:1, everything that was gathered is permitted. If the ratio was less than this, all that was gathered is forbidden.

[One might ask:] Why is one permitted to gather [the produce] at the outset? Seemingly, the law should require that everything be forbidden for him until he undertakes the difficulty of removing the forbidden plant or row.62 [It can be explained that that] a person will not cause his vineyard to be forbidden because of one plant.63 Were he to be able to identify it, he would remove it.64

כה

נטיעה של ערלה שנתערבה בנטיעות וכן ערוגה של כלאי הכרם בערוגות הרי זה לוקט לכתחלה מן הכל ואם היתה נטיעה במאתים נטיעות וערוגה במאתים ערוגות הרי כל הנלקט מותר ואם היו בפחות מזה כל הנלקט אסור ולמה התירו לו ללקוט לכתחלה והיה מן הדין שאוסרין לו הכל עד שיטרח ויוציא הנטיעה והערוגה האסורה שהדבר חזקה שאין אדם אוסר כרמו בנטיעה אחת ואילו היה יודעה היה מוציאה:

26

It is forbidden to benefit from cheese that is made to harden using the syrup of fruit that has not ripened,65 the stomach66 of an animal offered as a sacrifice to false divinities, or vinegar made from the wine of a false divinity. Although the forbidden entity is being mixed with a substance of another type and a very small amount is used, [the cheese] is forbidden for [the effect of] the forbidden entity is obvious, for it [caused the milk] to harden into cheese.67

כו

המעמיד גבינה בשרף פני ערלה או בקיבת תקרובת עכו"ם או בחומץ יין של עכו"ם הרי זו אסורה בהנייה אף על פי שהוא מין בשאינו מינו ואע"פ שהוא כל שהוא שהרי הדבר האסור הוא הניכר והוא שעשה אותה גבינה:

27

The law is that fruit that is orlah or from mixed species from a vineyard should be burnt.68 Liquids from [that fruit] should be buried, because it is impossible to burn liquids.

כז

הערלה וכלאי הכרם דין הפירות שלהן שישרפו והמשקין שלהן יקברו מפני שאי אפשר לשרוף המשקין:

28

When wine that was poured as a libation to idols is mixed with [other] wine, it is forbidden to benefit from the entire mixture regardless of how small [the amount of forbidden wine], as we explained.69

When does the above apply? When the permitted wine is poured onto a drop of wine that had been poured as a libation.70 If, however, one poured wine that had been pour as a libation from a small bottle71 into a cistern of wine, its presence is nullified. Even if one poured the entire day, each individual drop becomes nullified, drop after drop.72

If one pours from a jug,73 the entire quantity is forbidden. [This applies] whether one pours permitted wine into forbidden wine or forbidden wine into permitted wine. [This stringency is enforced,] because the column of wine which descends from the large jug [creates a connection].

כח

יין שנתנסך לעכו"ם שנתערב עם היין הכל אסור בהנייה בכל שהוא כמו שאמרנו במה דברים אמורים בשהורק היין המותר על טיפה של יין נסך אבל אם עירה יין נסך מצלצול קטן לתוך הבור של יין אפילו עירה כל היום כולו ראשון ראשון בטל עירה מן החבית בין שעירה מן המותר לאסור או מן האסור למותר הכל אסור מפני שהעמוד היורד מפי החבית גדול:

29

When even the smallest amount of ordinary [gentile] wine is mixed with [Jewish] wine, it is forbidden to drink [the entire mixture].74 Instead, it should be sold to a gentile in its entirety. The money [paid] for the forbidden wine should be cast into the Dead Sea.75 One may, however, benefit from the remainder of the money.76

Similarly, if a jug of wine poured as a libation had become intermingled with jugs of [kosher] wine, it is forbidden to drink the entire mixture.77 One may, however, benefit from it, selling the entire mixture to a gentile and casting the money for the [forbidden] jug into the Dead Sea. The same applies with regard to a jug of ordinary [gentile] wine.78

כט

נתערב סתם יינם ביין הרי זה אסור בכל שהוא בשתייה וימכר כולו לעכו"ם ולוקח דמי היין האסור שבו ומשליכו לים המלח ויהנה בשאר המעות וכן אם נתערבה חבית של יין נסך בין החביות הכל אסורין בשתייה ומותרין בהנייה ויוליך דמי אותה חבית לים המלח כשימכור הכל לעכו"ם וכן בחבית של סתם יינם:

30

When water is mixed into wine or wine is mixed into water, [the forbidden entity causes the mixture to be prohibited] if its flavor can be detected, because they are two different types of substances.79

When does the above apply? When the permitted liquid falls into the forbidden liquid. If, however, the forbidden liquid fell into the permitted liquid, the presence of it is nullified, drop after drop, provided it fell from a from a small bottle.80

How is it possible for water to be forbidden? If it was worshipped or if it was offered to a false divinity.

ל

מים שנתערבו ביין או יין במים בנותן טעם מפני שהן מין בשאינו מינו במה דברים אמורים בשנפל המשקה המותר לתוך המשקה האסור אבל אם נפל המשקה האסור לתוך המשקה המותר ראשון ראשון בטל והוא שיורק מצלצול קטן שהיה מריק ויורד מעט מעט והיאך יהיו המים אסורים כגון שהיו נעבדין או תקרובת עכו"ם:

31

[The following law applies when] a pitcher of water fell into a cistern of wine and afterwards,81 wine that was poured as a libation fell into it. [Initially,] we consider the permitted wine as if it did not exist,82 We measure the water in relation to the wine poured as a libation. If it83 is [of sufficient volume] to nullify the taste of the wine poured as a libation, the water is more abundant than it and it nullifies [the forbidden wine] and the entire [mixture] is permitted.

לא

בור של יין שנפל לתוכו קיתון של מים תחלה ואח"כ נפל לתוכו יין נסך רואים את יין ההיתר כאילו אינו והמים שנפלו משערין בהן עם יין נסך אם ראויין לבטל טעם אותו יין נסך הרי המים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו ויהיה הכל מותר:

32

When wine poured as a libation falls on grapes, one should wash them. They are permitted to be eaten.84 If the grapes have split open,85 when the wine imparts its flavor to them, it is forbidden to benefit from them.86If not, it is permitted to partake of them. [This applies] whether the wine is aged or fresh.87

לב

יין נסך שנפל על הענבים ידיחם והן מותרות באכילה ואם היו מבוקעות בין שהיה היין ישן בין שהיה חדש אם נותן טעם בענבים הרי אלו אסורות בהנייה ואם לאו הרי אלו מותרות באכילה:

33

When [forbidden wine] falls on figs, they are permitted, because wine impairs the flavor of figs.88

לג

נפל על גבי תאנים הרי אלו מותרות מפני שהיין פוגם בטעם התאנים:

34

When wine poured as a libation falls on wheat, [the wheat] is forbidden to be eaten, but it is permitted to benefit from it. One should not sell it to a gentile, lest he sell it again to a Jew. What should be done instead? He should grind [the wheat] into flour, make it into bread, and sell it to a gentile outside the presence of a Jew.89 [In this way,] a Jew will not repurchase it from the gentile,90 for the bread of a gentile is forbidden, as will be explained.91

Why do we not check the wheat to see if [the wine imparted] its flavor? Because [the wheat] draws out the wine92 and it becomes absorbed within it.93

לד

יין נסך שנפל על החטים הרי אלו אסורות באכילה ומותרות בהנייה ולא ימכרם לעכו"ם שמא יחזור וימכרם לישראל אלא כיצד עושה טוחן אותן ועושה מהן פת ומוכרה לעכו"ם שלא בפני ישראל כדי שלא יקחו אותה ישראל מן העכו"ם שהרי פת עכו"ם אסורה כמו שיתבאר ולמה אין בודקין את החטים בנותן טעם מפני שהן שואבות והיין נבלע בהן:

35

When wine poured as a libation becomes vinegar94 and falls into vinegar that comes from beer, even the slightest amount causes it to become forbidden. [The rationale is that] it is considered to have become mixed with the same type of substance, because they are both vinegar.95

When wine becomes mixed with vinegar, we see if [the forbidden entity] imparts its flavor.96 [This applies] whether [forbidden] vinegar falls into wine97 or [forbidden] wine falls into vinegar.

לה

יין נסך שהחמיץ ונפל לתוך חומץ שכר אוסר בכל שהוא מפני שהוא במינו ששניהן חומץ הן ויין שנתערב עם החומץ בין שנפל חומץ ליין בין שנפל יין לחומץ משערין אותו בנותן טעם:

Footnotes
1.

I.e., it does not become mixed with the forbidden substances into a single blend, nevertheless, it cannot be distinguished from the kosher substances.

2.

The presence of the forbidden substance is never nullified no matter how great the ratio between it and the permitted substances. Needless to say, this stringency was instituted by Rabbinic degree. As mentioned above, according to Scriptural Law, a simple majority is sufficient to nullify the presence of an entity.

3.

If, however, there is not enough to cause the dough to leaven, it is not considered a leavening agent and its presence can be nullified [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 2:6-7)].

4.

And must be sold to a priest at the price of terumah.

5.

If, however, they do not contain the same substance, according to the Rambam (loc. cit.), we see if their flavor can be detected or not. If it cannot be detected, the mixture is permitted.

6.

Perach and Baden are names of places. These and the following terms are defined in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:8).

7.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) states that this applies only when the barrels are large and therefore important. A small barrel is not important and its presence can be nullified by a simple majority.

8.

In contrast to those baked by a baker.

9.

I.e., all the pomegranates are considered as if they are the pomegranate that is orlah.

The Radbaz mentions opinions that state that one may throw away the value of the forbidden pomegranate, but then benefit from the entire mixture. He, however, brings support for the Rambam's position.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 101:1) appears to support the Rambam's ruling. Note, however, the comments of the Siftei Cohen 110:2 who writes that even though a Jew may not benefit from any one of the forbidden pomegranates himself, he may sell the entire mixture to a gentile, minus the price of the forbidden pomegranate. See also the notes to Halachah 7.

10.

This refers to an instance when the forbidden piece of meat was cooked with the other pieces.

11.

If its form changes, different rules apply, as apparent from Halachah 11.

12.

The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 109:1) state that if a piece of meat is not of the type that will bring a person respect by serving it to guests, the stringency mentioned in this halachah does not apply.

Tosafot (Chulin 100a) explains that even though in practice, the piece of meat will not bring honor to the person - because since it is forbidden, he cannot serve it - it is placed in this category, for were it not to be forbidden, it would bring him honor.

13.

There is an important insight associated with this ruling. The stringency relating to a piece of meat from which one receives honor applies only when the meat is inherently forbidden. When, however, a piece of kosher meat falls into a stew of non-kosher meat, it is not considered a piece of meat from which one receives honor, for it is not inherently forbidden. What is forbidden is the flavor of the non-kosher meat and that flavor is not a substance from which one receives honor.

This does not apply with regard to milk and meat. Although it is absorbing the milk that causes the meat to be considered forbidden, once it absorbs that milk, it becomes inherently forbidden. For both of the substances are themselves permitted, it is their mixture that is forbidden by the Torah (Radbaz).

14.

I.e., this stringency is applied even though we are speaking only about a Rabbinic prohibition (Kessef Mishneh).

15.

Chapter 2, Halachah 3.

16.

The Lechem Mishneh states that this is speaking about a situation when the gid hanesheh was cooked without its fat. Otherwise, 60 times its volume is required, for the fat does impart flavor.

17.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 100:1) gives the following criteria for a creation in its own right: It must be alive, in contrast to a kernel of wheat. It must be inherently forbidden, in contrast to a kosher fowl that was slaughtered improperly. It must be a complete entity to the extent that were it to be divided it would no longer be referred to with that name in contrast to non-kosher fat. And it must actually be whole, in contrast to a gid hanesheh that was cut in half.

18.

This principle applies with regard to all entities that are creations in their own right. Until they are removed, the mixture is forbidden regardless of the ration of kosher to nonkosher substances. Once they are removed, the ratio must be 60:1 (ibid.:2).

19.

An ox sentenced to execution for goring a human being. See Chapter 4, Halachah 22.

20.

This calf is an atonement offering brought by the elders of a city when there is an unresolved murder. See Hilchot Rotzeach , ch. 9.

21.

Tzara'at refers to a unique affliction of the skin resembling leprosy that afflicted a person because of he spoke lashon hora, unfavorable gossip. When the physical signs of his affliction have disappeared, the person must bring two doves as sacrifices. One is slaughtered and one is sent away, as stated in Hilchot Tumat Tzara'at 11:1. It is forbidden to benefit from the one that is slaughtered.

22.

A firstborn donkey must either be either exchanged for a lamb and the lamb given to a priest or the donkey's neck must be broken (Exodus 13:13; Hilchot Bikkurim, ch. 12).

23.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, stating that all that is necessary is to destroy the benefit one would receive from one of the forbidden entities. The benefit from the remainder is permitted. The Kessef Mishneh points to Halachah 29 as indication that the Rambam would also accept the ruling stated by the Ra'avad. The Migdal Oz differs and maintains that the Rambam would not accept that ruling. As mentioned above, the Siftei Cohen 101:2 defends the position of the Kessef Mishneh, stating that the Rambam would allow one to sell the entire mixture to a gentile, minus the price of the forbidden article.

24.

The Tur and the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 110:1) cite the view of other Rishonim who state that whenever an article is always sold by number, not by a package, its presence is never nullified.

25.

I.e., what is an example of an article that is sold by number being nullified.

26.

For according to Scriptural Law, a substance mixed with substances of the same type are forbidden when there is a majority of the permitted substance. When mixed with substances of a different type, they are nullified when the taste can no longer be detected.

27.

I.e., according to Scriptural Law; according to Rabbinic Law, both the first and the second mixtures are forbidden.

28.

For with regard to each of the pomegranates in the second mixture, there is a question if it is forbidden by Scriptural Law or not (Radbaz).

The Radbaz notes that the Rambam's ruling here appears to contradict his ruling in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 7:10 where the Rambam rules that if a goblet used for idol worship becomes mixed with other goblets and then one from the first mixture falls into a second mixture, one may use the goblets of the second mixture. The Radbaz maintains that with this ruling, the Rambam changed his mind and adopted a more stringent position.

The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Rambam rules more stringently in this instance than with regard to idol worship because the prohibition against idol worship is universally known. The prohibition against benefiting from a significant entity, by contrast, is less recognized. Therefore there is need for greater stringency. Alternatively, here the Rambam is speaking about partaking of the forbidden mixture, while in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim, he is speaking about benefiting from the mixture. Obviously, there is greater reason to prohibited a substance from which one partakes.

The position followed by the Rambam in Hilchot Avodat Kochavim is followed by other Rishonim even with regard to a significant entity. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 110:8) quotes the Rambam's view and the Rama adds further stringencies. The Turei Zahav 110:10 and the Siftei Cohen 110:3 mention the more lenient views.

29.

Perhaps the pomegranate that fell from the first mixture into the second mixture was not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Even if it was forbidden, perhaps the pomegranate that fell from the second mixture was not forbidden by Scriptural Law. Thus there is a multiple doubt if an entity forbidden by Scriptural Law is present.

30.

As required with regard to the prohibitions of orlah and mixed species in a vineyard. I.e., the stringency of a significant article no longer applies, because the entities are no longer whole and in their present form, they are not significant.

31.

Which would be forbidden because one derives honor from serving it as stated in Halachah 5. Once it has been minced, the meat is no longer a piece from which one would derive honor [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah101:6)].

32.

The commentaries question the Rambam's statement, noting that in Chapter 15, Halachah 26, the Rambam states that we may nullify the presence of a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law. Since the prohibition against these mixtures is Rabbinic in origin, seemingly, it would be possible to nullify their presence.

33.

See Chapter 15, Halachah 25.

34.

As mentioned in Halachah 1, if an entity is sufficient to cause a dough to leaven or to spice a pot, its presence can never be nullified. Although neither forbidden entity on its own is large enough to bring about this change, when the two are combined, this result is achieved. Therefore an Israelite is forbidden to partake of the dough or the pot. With regard to a priest, by contrast, since terumah is not forbidden to him, we do not say that an article forbidden to him brought about this change. For the mixed species alone is not of sufficient size. Hence, he is permitted to partake of the bread or the cooked food.

35.

If the combined flavor is not that of wheat, the dough does not become forbidden, because the yeast is considered as giving a different flavor to the dough. Hence the dough is forbidden only of that flavor is detectable.

The Ra'avad differs with the Rambam's ruling, offering a different interpretation of Avodah Zarah 65a, the Rambam's source. Significantly, their disagreement is mirrored by similar difference in interpretation by Rashi and Tosafot. Rashi and the Rambam follow one approach and Tosafot and the Ra'avad, the other.

36.

Although in actual fact the forbidden yeast or spices did not have an effect, because the dough leavened and the pot was spiced without them. Nevertheless, since they could have had an effect, they cause the dish to become forbidden.

Avodah Zarah 68a notes that when a dough is already leavened, adding yeast will spoil its flavor. Hence, seemingly, it should not be forbidden. Nevertheless, an exception is made with regard to dough, for when extra yeast is added to dough, that dough is then used to cause other doughs to leaven. Hence, it is not considered to be spoiled.

The Ra'avad understands the emphasis of the passage from Avodah Zarah differently and objects to the Rambam's ruling. He note that Avodah Zarah does not mention spices; the Rambam added those on the basis of his logic. And the Ra'avad, argues, that logic can be disputed. For the addition of yeast to the dough has an effect as explained. The addition of the spices, by contrast, have no effect - for the pot was already spiced. Why then do they cause the pot to be forbidden?

The Lechem Mishneh answers, that even according to the Ra'avad's understanding, the Rambam's logic can be defended, for the food from the heavily spiced pot could be used to spice other pots.

37.

The mixture is, however, forbidden to Israelites and permitted only to priests, for the presence of the terumah is not nullified.

38.

This and the following halachah represent the Rambam's interpretation of Orlah 2:2 which is based on the Jerusalem Talmud.

39.

I.e., the presence of the orlah or the mixed species from the vineyard are nullified.

40.

This example is the product of the Rambam's own deduction. Although the simple interpretation of Orlah, loc. cit., would imply that the concept stated in this halachah could also be derived from the situation described in the previous halachah, it does not work out mathematically. Hence, the Rambam had to find a new example.

41.

The prohibition is thus nullified because the ratio of permitted to forbidden substances is 200:1.

The Ra'avad criticizes the Rambam, questioning why he uses extremely large numbers. The Radbaz explains that the Rambam's figures enable all the calculations to be made without fragments.

42.

I.e., after it was discovered that the forbidden substance had fallen into the permitted substances. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Terumot 5:8).

43.

Thus despite the fact that it contains produce that was originally forbidden, the entire quantity may be used to nullify the presence of the second measure of forbidden produce that falls in.

MOSHE WHAT ABOUT CHOZAR VINIUR The rationale for this leniency is that according to Scriptural Law, the entire measure is permitted when there is a simple majority of forbidden substances.

44.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:8), the Rambam quotes the Sifra (Parshat Kedoshim) which teaches that since it is forbidden to benefit from Orlah, it is also forbidden to use it as a dye. The Rambam emphasizes that, accordingly, this applies, not only to fruit which is orlah, but also to the shells from which dye is made. In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Rav Kapach cites a responsa from the Rambam from which it appears that this applies only to shells because they serve a fruit. It is not forbidden to make dye from the wood or the bark of a tree that is orlah. See Halachah 24 and notes.

45.

Since the substance from which the dye comes is forbidden, the entire article becomes forbidden.

46.

The Rambam's wording - and hence, our translation - implies that one may cause the presence of the forbidden garment to be nullified by adding 200 other garments to it. The Radbaz explains that the mixture is forbidden only according to Rabbinic Law. As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 26, as an initial and preferred option, one may add a sufficient quantity of permitted substances to nullify the presence of a substance forbidden by Rabbinic Law. Note, however, the glosses of the Tosafot Yom Tov and Rav Kapach to Orlah 3:1, that do not accept this interpretation and state that one may not nullify the prohibition as an initial and preferred option.

47.

See Halachah 22.

48.

In his notes to the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 3:2), Rav Kapach elaborates on the definition of this term, concluding that it is equal to two thumbbreadths. This is also reflected in the Rambam's ruling, Hilchot Shabbat 9:18.

49.

I.e., if the entire garment is not 201 times the size of the portion dyed with the forbidden dye. In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam explains that this law teaches us that if even a small portion of a garment is dyed with forbidden dye, the entire garment may become forbidden.

50.

The Radbaz explains that a more lenient ruling is issued in this instance, because:

a) Here there is no substance that is forbidden, it is only the color that comes from the forbidden dye that is problematic. A differentiation can be made between this instance and the previous laws, for in those instances, the forbidden dye has already become permanently associated with a substance.

b) In this instance, the majority of the dyeing will result from the permitted dye. The effect of the prohibited dye is secondary.

51.

If so, it is then permitted to use even a new oven. Heating a new oven with the shells of orlah completes the task of fashioning the oven. Thus there is reason to say that since it was completed in a forbidden manner, the oven itself would be forbidden. Nevertheless, when permitted fuel is used even for such an oven, the products are permitted. The rationale is that they are produced by two substances: the oven which is forbidden and the fuel which is permitted. Whenever there are two factors involved, one permitted and one forbidden, the result is permitted to be used (Pesachim 26b). We do not require the oven to be destroyed, for the oven is not inherently forbidden (Kessef Mishneh).

One might ask: If so, why is an oven that is heated with shells that are orlah forbidden to be used. Here also there are two factors involved, the oven which is permitted and the fuel which is forbidden. It is possible to explain that the leniency of allowing to use the yield produced by a forbidden and a permitted substance only after the fact. In this instance, cooling the oven provides an easy alternative (Radbaz).

52.

One might ask, since the oven is permitted, even though the fuel is forbidden, there is both a permitted and a forbidden factor producing this result. Why, then, is the food forbidden? It is possible to explain that since the fire which is forbidden is evident and apparent, we rule stringently (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

53.

As indicated by the Halachah 24, this applies even if there are still glowing coals in the oven.

54.

One might ask: In the case of a new oven, since both factors - the oven and the fuel - are forbidden. Nevertheless, it appears that according to the Rambam, removing the fire is sufficient for the food to be permitted. For the oven itself is not inherently forbidden, it was only completed in a forbidden manner (Kessef Mishneh).

55.

Since the fuel used to fire the kitchenware is the primary element in completing them, they are forbidden. The Turei Zahav 142:7 explains that here we are speaking about kitchenware on which food is served cold. Since the kitchenware was made in a forbidden manner, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If, however, a pot was fired with forbidden fuel and then used to cook kosher food, that food would be permitted as is the law concerning a new oven. The Meiri (in his gloss to Pesachim 26b), however, explains that if one cooks food with a pot forbidden because of these factors, the food is forbidden.

56.

The Radbaz emphasizes that here, too, we are speaking about shells from fruit that is orlah. The wood of a tree never becomes forbidden as orlah.

57.

For once the wood is consumed by fire, it is no longer considered forbidden. See Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim 19:13 which states that it is permitted to benefit from the ashes of substances that are forbidden and required to be burnt.

58.

As evident from the continuation of the Rambam's statements, this applies when the permitted fuel was added after the forbidden fuel. Implied is that were the two fuels mixed together at the outset, the dish would be permitted.

59.

The Kessef Mishneh gives two interpretations for this halachah. Our translation follows the first interpretation. The Kessef Mishneh, however, questions that interpretation, stating that seemingly, the fact that the pot in which the food was cooked was permitted would add another permitted factor and thus the food was never cooked in a totally forbidden setting. He therefore offers another interpretation, stating that here the Rambam is speaking about firing the pot in which the food was cooked. First it was fired with forbidden fuel, then it was fired with permitted fuel, and then food was cooked in it with permitted fuel. Since it was originally fired with forbidden fuel, it becomes forbidden and any food cooked in it is likewise prohibited. The Turei Zahav 142:9 favors the first interpretation, explaining that the situation resembles food cooked in an oven with forbidden fuel.

60.

I.e., it was known that one plant or row was forbidden, but one was not able to identify the forbidden plant. It is somewhat difficult to conceive how a row of crops could not be recognized as mixed species growing in a vineyard.

61.

Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:6), the Rambam rules that at the outset, it is forbidden to gather this produce. The leniency stated in this halachah applies only after the fact. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam changed his mind, because the more lenient opinion is mentioned in the Talmud (Gittin 54b).

62.

I.e., perhaps we should ordain a decree, forbidding benefit from the entire field, lest one intentionally mix a forbidden orlah plant into his vineyard.

63.

Hence we do not fear that he will introduce a forbidden plant into the vineyard.

64.

I.e., we do not fear that he left the orlah plant intentionally.

In Hilchot Terumot 13:12, the Rambam rules more stringently with regard to terumah. A distinction between the two instances can be made, for terumah may be eaten by priests, while orlah is forbidden to everyone.

65.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Orlah 1:7), the Rambam states that it is common to use the white syrup that drips from underdeveloped figs as a catalyst to cause cheese to harden.

66.

I.e., using the renin as a catalyst.

67.

See Chapter 3, Halachah 13. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:5), the Rambam writes that the laws applying to a catalyst used to be make cheese are more severe than those applying to spices and yeast (Halachah 1, for the latter can be nullified when they fall into a substance of another type) for the reason explained above. As the Radbaz explains, even without yeast a dough would be able to be baked and a dish could be served without spices, but without a catalyst, milk would never harden into cheese.

68.

Kiddushin 56b derives this from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:9, pen tikadeish, "lest it become hallowed," interpreting it as pen tukad eish, "lest it be consigned to fire."

69.

Chapter 15, Halachot 6-7.

70.

The Siftei Cohen quotes Rishonim who rule that if a quantity of permitted wine that is 60 times the volume of the forbidden wine falls into the forbidden wine at the same time, the presence of the forbidden wine is nullified. The stringency mentioned by the Rambam applies only when the kosher wine is poured into the forbidden wine little by little. The Siftei Cohen rules that if a severe loss is involved, one may rely on this leniency.

71.

I.e., a bottle from which the wine is poured one drop at a time.

72.

The Radbaz states that this applies even if the majority of the mixture comes from the forbidden wine. Since each drop was nullified, the entire quantity is permitted. The Siftei Cohen 134:4 differs and requires that the permitted wine be 60 times the volume of the forbidden wine.

According to the Rambam, it is even permitted to drink the wine of the mixture. Rashi (Avodah Zarah 73a) rules that it is permitted to benefit from the wine, drinking it, however, is forbidden. And the Ra'avad rules that it is forbidden even to benefit from it. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling.

73.

I.e., a container with a large opening.

74.

The Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) rules leniently, stating that in the present era, since it is no longer customary to pour wine as libations to false divinities, one may be lenient and permit the mixture if there is 60 times more kosher wine than forbidden wine, provided the kosher wine is not poured into the forbidden wine in one column.

75.

I.e., cast into a place where one will not benefit from it.

76.

One may, however, destroy one jug and then benefit from the others - e.g., to use the wine as a dye - for it is possible that one will be benefiting directly from the forbidden wine. The advice suggested by the Rambam, by contrast, allows the Jew to benefit from the remainder of the wine without any possibility of benefiting directly from the forbidden wine.

The advice suggested applies only to jugs, for each jug is a separate entity. It does not apply when wine becomes mixed with wine, as indicated by the previous halachah (Avodah Zarah 74a).

77.

See the Rama (Yoreh De'ah 134:2) who explains that this applies only when the jugs are large and therefore important as mentioned in Halachah 3. Otherwise, the presence of the forbidden jug can be nullified by a simple majority.

78.

Seemingly, this ruling is obvious. The Kessef Mishneh states that it was added to emphasize the stringency that one must destroy the value of the forbidden jug.

79.

As stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 6.

80.

See Halachah 28.

Rav Moshe HaCohen questions how the presence of the forbidden entity can be nullified, since its flavor can be detected. Indeed, when quoting this law, Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:3) states this leniency applies only when the taste of the forbidden substance cannot be detected.

81.

Avodah Zarah 73a emphasizes that the leniency mentioned in this halachah applies only when the water falls into the wine before the forbidden wine. If the forbidden wine falls in first, the permitted wine becomes prohibited.

82.

And thus it is not automatically forbidden.

83.

I.e., the water alone. The permitted wine is not considered, for any amount of the forbidden wine mixed into it would cause the permitted wine to be prohibited.

84.

For the forbidden wine will not have entered them.

85.

And thus the forbidden wine could enter.

86.

They may, however, be sold to a gentile, minus the increase in their value produced by the forbidden wine [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:8)].

87.

Avodah Zarah 66a emphasizes that even if the fresh wine has the same flavor as the grapes, the grapes are not forbidden. For the wine is considered as a different type of substance.

88.

Hence even if it imparts its flavor, the figs are not forbidden. Although the version of Avodah Zarah 5:2 which the Rambam relies on differs from the standard published text of the Mishnah, the Rambam's ruling is accepted as halachah by Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah134:9).

89.

This is permitted, for the gentile is paying for the bread alone. He is not paying for the wine at all.

90.

If, however, the Jew selling a fellow Jew selling bread to the gentile, he might purchase it from him.

91.

Chapter 17, Halachah 9. A Jew will have no way of knowing that this bread was not baked by the gentile. Hence he will refrain from purchasing it from him. In a place where it is customary to purchase bread from gentiles, there is no way of benefiting from the wheat [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 134:11)].

92.

As Avodah Zarah 65b states, the kernels of wheat are cracked and this causes them to absorb the wine (Lechem Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit.).

93.

The Radbaz emphasizes that the taste of the wine becomes blended in with the taste of the wheat to the extent that it cannot be detected.

94.

The vinegar is forbidden, as the wine was.

95.

The fact that originally one was wine and one was beer is not significant.

96.

If it does, the mixture is forbidden. If not, it is permitted. Even if the vinegar originally came from wine, it is considered as a different substance.

97.

It is not automatically permitted, because vinegar impairs the flavor of wine, for there are some who prefer vinegar to wine (Rashba, as quoted by Turei Zahav 134:8).

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.