The Torah commands in Parashat Re’eh (Debarim 14:21), “Lo Tochelu Kol Nebela” – that we may not eat a Nebela. The term “Nebela” refers to the carcass of an animal, even of a kosher species, that died in any way other than valid Shehita. If the animal died on its own, was killed without slaughtering, or was slaughtered in a manner that is not Halachically acceptable, then the carcass is considered a Nebela and forbidden for consumption.
The reason for this prohibition, the Sefer Ha’hinuch writes, is the same as the reason for the Torah’s other dietary restrictions, namely, that the Torah forbade foods which adversely affect a person’s mind and cloud his judgment.
After prohibiting the consumption of a Nebela, the Torah adds that a Nebela may be fed to a non-Jew. The Sages inferred from this addition that this prohibition applies only to a Nebela which is worthy of consumption. As the Torah speaks of feeding a Nebela to a gentile, we may conclude that only a Nebela which a gentile would want to eat is forbidden for a Jew. But if the meat had already spoiled, and has a putrid taste, such that nobody would eat it, then it does not fall under the prohibition of Nebela.
This is the source of the well-known Halacha known as “Noten Ta’am Li’fgam,” which establishes that a foul taste of forbidden food is not forbidden. As we know, if prohibited food was cooked in a utensil, then the utensil has absorbed its taste, and it would thus be forbidden to eat food that is cooked in the utensil subsequently, as this food will have absorbed the taste of the forbidden food from the utensil. However, the Sages determined that once twenty-four hours have passed since the food was absorbed into the utensil, the taste becomes foul, and thus it is no longer forbidden.
The Sefer Ha’hinuch proceeds to explain how this principle applies to Hag’ala – immersing a utensil in hot water in order to expunge the taste of forbidden food, and thereby make the utensil permissible for use. At first glance, this immersion should be ineffective, because the taste is released into the water and then immediately back into the utensil. Often, the quantity of water is not sixty times larger than the volume of the utensil such that the forbidden taste can be nullified by the water. Seemingly, then, Hag’ala should not be effective in making the utensil permissible, unless the amount of water is sixty times larger than the amount of taste expunged into the water. However, if the immersion takes place at least twenty-four hours after the utensil had absorbed the taste, then the taste is foul, and thus loses its prohibited status. At that point, then, the immersion is effective.
Relevant to the topic of Hag’ala, the Poskim address the question of why we do not recite a Misva before performing Hag’ala on a utensil that has become forbidden. Seemingly, just as we recite a Beracha when immersing utensils obtained from a gentile to make them permissible for use (“Al Tebilat Keli/Kelim”), we should likewise recite a Beracha when performing Hag’ala to expunge the forbidden taste from a utensil.
One answer given is that Hag’ala is not a Misva, but rather the means of avoiding a transgression. Hag’ala is performed so that food cooked subsequently in the utensil would be permissible for consumption; it is not performed in the fulfillment of an obligation. It is comparable in this respect to Nikur – the removal of the Gid Ha’nasheh (sciatic nerve) and its surrounding area from an animal – upon which no Beracha is recited. Nikur is required not as a Halachic obligation, but rather to avoid violating the prohibition against eating the Gid Ha’nasheh, and thus it does not warrant a Beracha. By the same token, some argue, no Beracha is recited over Hag’ala, a procedure done for the purpose of avoiding the consumption of forbidden food.
Others challenge this answer, drawing a distinction between Hag’ala and Nikur. Whereas the Torah never mentions Nikur, it speaks clearly about the procedure of Hag’ala to purge utensils that had been used with forbidden food (Bamidbar, chapter 31). Hence, as the Torah explicitly mentions Hag’ala, we must find a different reason for why a Beracha is not recited over Hag’ala. These Rabbis explain that a Beracha isn’t recited because it is not necessary to purge the utensil of the taste of forbidden food. One can use a different utensil, or purchase a new utensil, rather than perform Hag’ala on the pot that had been used with non-kosher food. Since Hag’ala is not necessary, it is not considered significant enough to warrant a Beracha.
Others question the first approach by noting the example of a Nidda, who recites a Beracha over her immersion. In this case, too, no Halachic obligation is being fulfilled, and the act is performed only to avoid a violation (in this case, intimate relations with a Nidda). The answer given is that in the case of a Nidda, the woman’s status is being transformed from forbidden to permissible; the immersion has the effect of making her permissible. By contrast, when one performs Hag’ala, nothing is being transformed. The forbidden taste is being removed from the utensil so it will not affect the food which will later be prepared in the utensil, but nothing is having its status transformed from forbidden to permissible, as a Nidda’s status is changed. (This is true also of Nikur, which involves the removal of the forbidden part of the animal, and not its transformation into permissible food.) Therefore, a Nidda’s immersion warrants a Beracha, whereas Hag’ala does not.
The Nebela prohibition applies in all times and places, and is binding upon both men and women. One who eats a Ke’zayit of meat of a Nebela is liable to Malkut.