Class, don’t miss this. We’re in Tzadi-Daled. We did halachah (Jewish law), yod-vav, yesterday. I’m reading the Tur in Tzadi-Daled, vav. It’s a straightforward Tur, quoting Sefer HaTerumah: “Katav be-Sefer HaTerumah af al gav de-bi-she’ar issurim kedeirah shel issur (prohibition) sheshehatetah me-et le-et be-lo issur, im huchamu mayim chamin be-toch me-et le-et, chashivah ke-bat yomah, she-harei ta’am ha-issur she-ba-kedeirah palat le-toch ha-mayim (the pot’s taste enters the water), ve-lo hayu bahem shishim (sixty) le-vattelah, u-ve-chulah mesha’arinnan ve-na’asit bat yomah, u-tzrichah she-yehe gam me-et le-et le-achar chimum ha-mayim.”
We said that when it comes to she’ar issurim, if the prohibition is absorbed into the wall of a pot and then you heat up water, and there aren’t sixty parts in the water against the balu'a (absorbed), you start the clock again from the heating of the water. Even though, if you count from the original bli'ah (absorption), the taste will already be pagum (impaired) by the time you cook a second time, you don’t count from the original absorption. You count from the heating of the water, which starts the clock again. He says this applies to she’ar issurim.
But, he says, with basar ve-chalav (meat and then milk, not together), it is different. If you cooked meat in the pot—meat alone—and within twenty-four hours you heated water in it, and after twenty-four hours had passed you cooked meat in it and then cooked chalav (milk) in it, it is muttar (permitted), even though the milk was cooked within twenty-four hours of the water being heated.
Basically, when he says basar ve-chalav, he means meat and then milk, not together. You cooked the meat alone, then cooked water in the pot, and there weren’t sixty parts in the water. We don’t say that the water rejuvenates the taste and starts the clock again. Rather, you always count from the bli'ah of the basar. By the time the chalav is put in, the basar’s taste is pagum, so there is no problem of issur of basar ve-chalav: the pagum goes into the chalav, and after the fact the chalav is muttar. That is Sefer HaTerumah.
The Beit Yosef quotes the source here: “Ve-chen katav ken ba-Sema’k be-shem Sefer HaTerumah.” Now he gives the reason: “Ve-ta’ama de-shari be-vasar ve-chalav yoter mi-she’ar issurim, af al pi she-ha-chamin she-beintayim mashvei lei bat yomah ve-havei le-shevach.” Seemingly, this water brings out the taste, so you should count from the water. But he says, “Mashvei lei bat yomah ve-havei le-shevach, hainu mishum de-havei nat bar nat de-heiteira (a permitted transfer of a transfer).” One transfer is into the pot, and the second is into the water. What is it? It’s meat water; there is no prohibition in meat water. So it is nat bar nat de-heiteira, and there is no problem.
“Min ha-basar la-kedeirah u-min ha-kedeirah le-mayim chamin she-huchamu beintayim,” and then it goes back into the pot: “U-min ha-mayim chamin la-kedeirah, ve-ha-kol be-heiter (permitted).” But with a pot that has absorbed a prohibition, there is a problem. You can’t permit it on this basis, because the permission of nat bar nat applies only from one permitted substance to another, as with meat and milk. But with a prohibition, even though regarding the prohibition itself it is nat bar nat—this is a very interesting expression in the Sema’k as quoted by the Beit Yosef—the implication is that even though it is nat bar nat, seemingly there is a prohibition here.
In practice, Maran himself will say that there is no such thing as nat bar nat with a prohibition. Nat bar nat was said only with something permitted. Therefore, if it is prohibited, the rule of nat bar nat was never given. But the way the Sema’k sounds as quoted here is: no, it really is nat bar nat too; it is nat bar nat de-issura. So, seemingly, by the time it gets into the water, it is nat bar nat. But we have the issue of Chanan. “Mi-kol makom, kol mah she-yotzei mimenu afilu ha-heiter assur, mishum de-kayma lan de-chatichah atzmah na’asit neveilah (a piece itself becomes forbidden) li-vlo’a heiter she-bah.” Therefore, even though regarding the prohibition absorbed into the water that was heated in the meantime it is nat bar nat in something permitted that comes afterward, nevertheless the water itself, by itself, prohibits, because the piece itself becomes forbidden.
Where does he come along and say this? You have a problem with the permitted water. If you hold that chatichah na’asit neveilah applies to she’ar issurim, then this is not basar ve-chalav; it is she’ar issurim. He is saying that even if you call what comes out nat bar nat, this is a prohibition, and it comes in contact with the water. There are obviously not sixty parts against it, so the water becomes prohibited through chatichah na’asit neveilah. Once the whole water becomes prohibited, it goes back into the pot. Therefore, you have to start counting from the water. You can’t count from the original absorption. You’re right that what is in the walls is already impaired; that is not a problem. But a new prohibition was created in the water through chatichah na’asit neveilah.
He says, “Ve-af al gav delegabei ha’issur hanivla bemayim amrinan shehu amah beta’ama vehavei nat bar nat beheter, she-ba achar kach, mi-kol makom ha-mayim atzmam le-vadam osrim.” Forget about nat bar nat: the water becomes prohibited because of chatichah na’asit neveilah. Even if you want to call this nat bar nat, once it goes into the water, deal with the water. The water itself became prohibited. Therefore, you can’t count from the original absorption; you have to count from the water. That is how the Beit Yosef brings it from the Sema’k.
Of course, if you’ve already learned the Shach, open the Shach in Tzadi-Daled, halachah vav. What does Maran say? Let’s read vav in the Shach for a moment. What was the Shach’s section? Which section was it? It was kaf-bet, about betzalim and yerakot (vegetables). Maran didn’t bring this case here. He began with the second part of Sefer HaTerumah, about betzalim and yerakot, which we’ll discuss later. That is a different story.
The Shach immediately says, “Zeh leshon haTur: katuv be-Sefer HaTerumah, af al gav devishe’ar issurim kedei kelipat issur, sheshe’atan me’et le’et belo issur, im huchamu bechamin mitoch me’et le’et, chashiva keven yomo, sheharei ta’am ha’issur shenivla niflat leloch hamayim, velo hayah bamayim shishim levatlo, vechulah mesha’arinan. Ma’aseh beyora dechamatah vesalika me’et le’et, le’achar chimum hamayim. Aval bebasar bechalav eino chen, she’im nishka babasar toch me’et le’et vehuchamu bamayim le’achar she’at me’et le’et, mishum debasar…” He is quoting Sefer HaTerumah. That is the end of Sefer HaTerumah as quoted in the Tur.
“Vechatav baSemak,” the Beit Yosef pointed out. The Shach quotes: “Hata’am denivla min ha’issur chashivei mayim shekiblu atzmo issur, dechanan, dena’asa neveilah, mah she’ein ken bebasar bechalav de’adayin kulo heter, im ken havei nat bar nat. Vechach katav Beit Yosef besof siman (section) kuf-lamed-tet, al haposkim delo amrinan chanan rak bebasar bechalav, lo mashkachat lehai dina bishe’ar issurim.”
Very good. Maran holds that if you don’t hold Chanan, this halachah doesn’t apply. If you don’t hold Chanan in she’ar issurim, the water will not become prohibited. If the water does not become prohibited, then seemingly there should be no problem here, even though there is a prohibition involved. But there is still a question: what came out of the pot is prohibited, and it comes in contact with the water. If Maran clearly holds later, in Tzadi-Heh, that there is no nat bar nat with a prohibition, what happens? The prohibition came out, there weren’t sixty parts, and you don’t hold Chanan. But seemingly the prohibition will go back in, so you should still have to start counting from the water. What does that have to do with whether you hold Chanan? We’ll have to figure out the Beit Yosef’s approach.
Seemingly, even if you don’t hold Chanan, if this is nat bar nat de-issura and there weren’t sixty parts, we have to understand how Maran understands this halachah. But continue with the Shach. He is going to ask these questions on the Beit Yosef in a minute.
The Shach says that Maran doesn’t hold Chanan later on. He says, “Velaposkim”—I’m reading from the piece I have; I don’t know which one—“mikol makom laposkim delo amrinan chanan rak bebasar bechalav, lo mashkachat lehai dina bishe’ar issurim.” But, he says, “Vadai haTur shekatav lehai deSefer HaTerumah bistam.” The Tur wrote this halachah without qualification. He didn’t say that it applies only according to the opinions that hold Chanan. The Tur wrote it stam, which means that it should apply according to all the opinions. It has nothing to do with whether you hold Chanan.
“Vechen lekaman bese’if besiman kuf-chaf-alef katav bistam lehai dina, vadai lo svira leh hachi, deha ihu pasak nami besiman tzadi-bet d’amrinan chanan beshar isurim.” The Tur himself does hold Chanan in she’ar issurim, and he also holds this law of Sefer HaTerumah. So it is not necessarily dependent on the law of Chanan. You don’t have to hold Chanan in she’ar issurim to hold by the law of Sefer HaTerumah.
He says, “Ela nireh desvira leh demita’am acher lo shayach kelala nat bar nat bedavar isur kemo shekatav haRan beferek Kol HaBasar delo sharei nat bar nat ela beshel heiter.” The Ran says that nat bar nat is permitted only with something permitted, as with meat and milk. The second taste is still permitted, and because it has become so weakened, it is not considered capable of prohibiting. But with something prohibited, wherever there is taste—and in this case there is taste because there aren’t sixty parts—it prohibits indefinitely.
That’s the Ran’s rule: there is no nat bar nat with a prohibition. “Ai,” you might say, “the taste has weakened.” It can weaken indefinitely; it doesn’t matter. Once it began with a prohibition, the permission wasn’t given. And here you don’t have sixty parts against the taste. So what does this have to do with Chanan? Nothing. If there is no nat bar nat with a prohibition, that settles it, regardless of Chanan.
He continues, “Ve’od muchach sham dekatav ken afilu leman d’amar delo amrinan chanan beshar isurim, ayein sham.” The Ran was discussing opinions that do not say Chanan in she’ar issurim. So the Shach’s point is to dismantle the connection between Chanan in she’ar issurim and Sefer HaTerumah. They are not dependent on one another. You don’t have to hold Chanan in she’ar issurim for the law of Sefer HaTerumah to be valid.
“Ayein besiman tzadi-bet vechvar nitba’er heiteiv beSha’ar Dura sof siman peh-heh ayein sham, uv’Tosafot perek gimmel d’Avodat Kochavim, vehainu uchechatav haRosh besof Avodat Kochavim sham de’im nitbashel bah salik me’et le’et bebishul acharon, uvisfer Ma’adanei Melech sham katav demaha mashma desvira leh lehaRosh d’amrinan chanan bechol isurim.” The Rosh brings down Sefer HaTerumah, so the Ma’adanei Melech says, “Ah, the Rosh must hold Chanan in she’ar issurim.” The Ma’adanei Melech simply linked them together.
He says, “What do you mean? If that’s the case, how did the other rabbis come along?” The Tur and the Beit Yosef omitted the words of the Rosh there, which means they wanted to hold that the Rosh does not hold Chanan in she’ar issurim. The Ma’adanei Melech says, “What are you talking about? The fact that the Rosh brings down Sefer HaTerumah must mean that he holds Chanan in she’ar issurim! Did the Tur and the Beit Yosef omit what the Rosh said about Sefer HaTerumah, which he agrees with?” To the Ma’adanei Melech, Chanan in she’ar issurim and Sefer HaTerumah go together. If you hold one, you must hold the other. When he saw the Rosh bring down Sefer HaTerumah, he concluded that the Rosh must hold Chanan. So how could the Tur and the Beit Yosef put the Rosh among those who do not hold Chanan?
Then he famously says, “Veleit nagar uvar nagar diyifarkinah.” Even if you call a carpenter whose father was also a carpenter, a nagar bar nagar, someone who knows how to get out of locks—a locksmith, the son of a locksmith—they can’t break this lock. It is a strong question.
The Shach comes along and says, “I don’t know what the question is. I already gave you the answer. They are not dependent on one another. You don’t have to hold Chanan and you can still hold the ruling of Sefer HaTerumah, because of the Ran, who says that we don’t say nat bar nat when it comes to a prohibition. That is said only regarding something permitted.” He says, “Velo amadeti al sof da’ato dehadavar barur kidefeirashti.” I explained it already. The Rosh, Ran, and Tur are right: the Rosh does not hold Chanan in she’ar issurim, and he does hold the ruling of Sefer HaTerumah because there is no nat bar nat with a prohibition.
“Vechen haRashba bitshuvah siman tak… tak-yud-vav nami katav kehaRan.” The Rashba holds that we do not say Chanan in she’ar issurim. So there is another rabbi who separates the issues. “Vechen katav Beit Yosef besiman tzadi-heh deda’at kol haposkim shaveh bazeh devedavar isur lo shayach nat bar nat.” The Beit Yosef himself wrote that the opinions agree that nat bar nat does not apply to a prohibition. So the Beit Yosef does not join the two issues. If you hold the rule that there is no nat bar nat with a prohibition, you don’t have to hold Chanan in she’ar issurim.
“Vechatuv beTorat Chatat kol zeh pashut, hainu beta’ama dekatav haRan dekeivan dekeivan dene’esar le’olam hu be’isuro omed.” Therefore, what comes out? “KideRazo, shehu cham uva mayim toch me’et le’et chashiva bat yoma, vehavei devar issur velo shayach nat bar nat.”
Now, by the way, you also have to say that this is a novel point. Is Maran arguing with Maran here? Maran is not going to hold this. We’ll have to say that it is not a novel point according to Maran. But in the Shach, seemingly, this is also a novel point. Why am I counting from here? I’m counting from the first point. When it came out, it was still prohibited. We don’t say haklashah ba'ah, nat bar nat, so there is a prohibition in the water. Then it went back in, and I have to count it again.
“Mah she’ein ken,” he says, “bevasar bechalav.” Is that clear? Now he goes to the Beit Yosef. “Od katav baBeit Yosef besof siman kuf-gimmel: mihu, heicha shehi belu’ah mivasar bechalav shenitbashlu yachad o bezeh achar zeh, delechulei alma chashiv ke’ilu chazar venitbashel bo issur, umonim me’et le’et mesha’ah shechummamu bah hamayim, devevasar bechalav modu dechanan, ad kan leshono.”
The Beit Yosef clearly says that with basar ve-chalav, where there is Chanan, you have to start the clock again. Why? Because a new prohibition was created in the water through Chanan, and now it went back in. No problem. But he says this only about basar ve-chalav, because Maran does not hold Chanan in she’ar issurim.
So the Shach asks: what do you mean? The Beit Yosef says that even if you don’t hold Chanan in she’ar issurim, you can still hold the law of Sefer HaTerumah. Tell me how that works. But that is Maran’s opinion. Let’s jump to the practical halachah: according to Maran, this law applies only to basar ve-chalav. It is only when you cooked basar ve-chalav that the water starts the clock again, not with she’ar issurim.
The question is how Maran understands this, seemingly, if the Ran holds that there is no nat bar nat with she’ar issurim. If it is not nat bar nat and you don’t need to hold Chanan, as with the Rashba, the Rosh, and the other rabbis the Shach discussed, what is the logic of the Beit Yosef’s opinion? Why does he say we can be lenient and say the taste is impaired, so when you cook a second time you can count from what was absorbed? If you count from what was absorbed, it is already impaired, and you won’t have a problem or need sixty parts. Seemingly, if it is nat bar nat de’issura, it should be prohibited forever, as the Shach said, regardless of what you hold regarding Chanan.
One way they resolve this is from Rabbi Yehonatan Eybeschutz. He uses the principle of meduma. The principle of meduma says, let’s assume the worst. Let’s assume that the first time you cooked water in this pot, the meat was still within its first twenty-four hours. Let’s give a mashal. Say you have ten times as much water as the pot. You don’t have sixty parts; you have ten times as much water as the keli (vessel). All the basar (meat) came out and split evenly into the water. All the water came out and split up. Then it went back in. That is the whole issue we’re worried about: it goes out and comes back in.
Do you have to start counting from the moment it goes back in? Only a portion of it goes back in. One-tenth of the meat’s taste goes back in, because now nine-tenths of it is in the water. What goes back in is one-tenth of what came out, because the water is there as well. That means all that chalav that went out was divided into 10 parts of water. So what goes back in is a very small amount.
The Kreiti says that if you use the system of meduma, the second time you cook you will certainly have shishim; the Kreiti uPleiti also brings this up. But now I cook again. That is the case we’re discussing. You might say you have to count from the second time. Even if you count from the second time, what is in the pot at all? Such a small amount, according to the measure of meduma. If you use that principle, then we can be lenient, he says, because Maran would always have sixty parts. You’re not going to have a problem, and therefore you can cook and be okay.
I don’t know why this is not considered bitul isur lechatchilah (nullifying a prohibition initially). Why isn’t it? Because I’m preventing it from becoming prohibited. Whenever you say this, it is automatically nullified. It’s not applicable. Bitul lechatchilah is when it can go either way, but when it will be nullified either way, mimah nafshech (either way), then it isn’t bitul. That is the only way to say it isn’t bitul. Bitul lechatchilah is when, if you don’t have sixty parts, it will be prohibited, and if you do have sixty parts, it will be nullified. When there will always be sixty parts, we can say it is not considered bitul isur lechatchilah.
“So you don’t even need to wait from the first?” Right, you go according to the first one. “No, no, always the first one. Why do you need to wait? The first one, of course, has to be impaired.” If it is batel beshishim (nullified in sixty parts), you don’t need it to be impaired. “Well, you need it to be impaired from the first.” According to this, once it came out and went back in, it is batel beshishim. But you still have to account for what stayed in the pot. I have to go both ways. I have to be concerned about both possibilities: what came out, and what stayed in.
Let’s assume everything came out. You have that rule? Let me read it: “Im nivla isur mu’at betoch keli kasher, im darko shel oto keli lehishtamesh bo beshefa… pi shishim, mutar lehishtamesh bo lechatchilah. Keivan sheha’isur mu’at, i efshar lavo lidei noten ta’am.” Beautiful. The siman is Tzadi-tet, se'if zayin. That answers why it is not bitul isur lechatchilah.
If you assume everything came out, whatever went back in is only one-tenth. But on the other hand, I have to assume stringently: maybe nothing came out, or only a little came out. Regarding what stayed in, I’ll wait until it is impaired. Mimah nafshech, I can go both ways. So he says we can be lenient even in the first case. That is how to resolve Maran.
Practically speaking, everyone, we have a fantastic machloket (dispute) between the Shach and Maran. According to Maran, this halachah applies only to basar ve-chalav, because basar ve-chalav creates Chanan. That is interesting, by the way; it is a whole machloket we didn’t discuss, though we discussed it a little. Does basar ve-chalav create Chanan? Everyone says that basar ve-chalav—something permitted combined with something permitted—creates Chanan, as we saw in the Shach. But once something is already prohibited, does a prohibition create Chanan? We saw that in the Shach’s case with the spoons. When you dip the spoon twice, does something prohibited make something prohibited?
We came out, seemingly, that the idea of something permitted combining with something permitted is just a siman, not necessarily a rule. Even a prohibition can seemingly create Chanan. But with an ordinary issur, outside of basar ve-chalav, according to Maran you have no problem. You can rely on the opinion that you need shishim, and that the twenty-four hours are counted only from the original balu'a, not from the water.
Now let’s discuss the second case, the case Maran did discuss explicitly. I’m only going to raise the questions, and then we’ll have to try to find some resolutions. What was the case of betzalim? We’ll go back to the onions. You think it’s an easy case, but it isn’t.
The Tur says, “Af al gav debish’ar isurim shebatorah, isur habalu’a beheter, kegon betzalim belu’im meisur.” You have onions with chazir in them. “Ubishlam bikdeirah shel heter, tzarich shishim keneged kol habetzalim.” If you hold Chanan in she’ar issurim, the onions become like chazir, so you have to count against all the onions. “Velo sagi beshishim keneged kol habeli’ah.” Fine.
“Ubevasar bechalav eino chen, she’im habetzalim o yerakot belu’im mibasar.” These are onions with meat in them. “Ubishlam bikdeirah cholevet, im yadu’a kamah basar balu’a babetzalim ubayerakot.” If you know how much meat is absorbed in the onions and vegetables, “ein tzarich shishim… tzarich shishim keneged habasar velo keneged kol habatzal vehayerakot.” You need sixty parts against the meat, not against all the onion and vegetables, because this is still something permitted. The meat is not there. Regarding a prohibition in the onions, the onions become prohibited, so you have to account for the whole thing. But here you count against the meat.
What does the Beit Yosef say? The Chacham Beit Yosef says, “Gam zeh midivrei Ba’al HaTerumah.” He adds, “Be patient; I’ll discuss this in siman Tzadi-vav. Vegam din zeh mita’am hanizkar, dehvei nat bar nat deheiteira.” Oh, shomu shamayim al zot! This is a permission based on nat bar nat? Forgive me, maybe I have the case wrong.
You have a piece of onion. In the first case, what was in the onion? Chazir. The taste of chazir was absorbed; there was actual chazir in it, and it had the taste of chazir. So what do you say? “I have three kazeitim (olive-sized measures) of onions and one kazayit (olive-sized measure) of chazir.” Now I have four olive-sized measures of prohibition. The onions become chazir. Fine.
But with basar ve-chalav, the case is the same: three olive-sized measures of onions, with one olive-sized measure of meat inside. You only have to count against the one olive-sized measure, because that meat does not make the onions themselves prohibited. You need sixty parts in the milk against the meat.
The Beit Yosef says, “Okay, nat bar nat.” But there is no nat bar nat here if we’re learning that there is something inside the onion, actual substance. What does this have to do with nat bar nat? And if it were nat bar nat, God forbid, suppose you were cooking it in a dairy pot, not in actual milk. Then there is one transfer in the pot, and it goes into the vegetables: nat bar nat de-heiteira. It’s all within the first twenty-four hours, but the taste in the dairy pot goes into the onions, and it is still permitted there. So there should be no problem. But if it’s nat bar nat, why do I need sixty parts against the meat? Why do I need sixty parts at all?
What is the case of onions that have meat in them? Is it the taste of meat? The Perishah comes along here. I don’t know if you saw the Perishah in chet, at the end of chet, but he says, “Katav Beit Yosef tameh al chiluk bli’at betzalim me-isur o me-heter de-havei mi-ko’ach nat bar nat le-hetera, ve-tamu’ah hu be-enai, de-i efshar lomar ken, de-ha Rabbenu katav be-samuch, zeh leshono, she-yehe betzalim o yerakot belu’im mi-basar.” Clearly, the case is that they are absorbed with meat. “U-mashma de-belu’im afilu mi-gufo basar, ve-lo mi-ta’amo, ve-chach katav sham ve-saba be-Siman Tzadi-Gimmel.”
So what does nat bar nat have to do with this? Once it is absorbed from meat itself, this permission is not nat bar nat. It has to be a different heiter—I don't know what; it is not nat bar nat.
Furthermore, the authorities all ask this question. The Pri Megadim asks it. If you look at the Pri Megadim in Siftei Da’at, in Chaf-Dalet, at the end he says, “I mi-ta’am, i mi-ta’am nat bar nat en tzarich kelum mi-basar zeh, lo shishim neged ha-basar.” If it’s nat bar nat, you don’t need anything from this meat; you don’t need sixty parts against the meat. On this question he says, “Omnam le-zot yechrad libi ve-yitar mi-mekomi.” “I’m jolted out of my position by this kind of question. What’s going on here?”
That is one question: if it is absorbed, then it is not nat bar nat. If it isn’t absorbed, what do you need sixty parts for?
Another question the later authorities raise is that they assume the case is talking about meat absorbed in the onions, and that “cooked in a dairy pot” means cooked in milk. That is how the later authorities understand the case. They say that if you have sixty parts in the milk, you don’t need to count against the whole onion; you only need sixty parts against the meat absorbed in it. Forget Chanan; there is no Chanan here. It’s meat absorbed in onions that fell into milk, so I need sixty parts in the milk against the olive-sized measure of meat, not against all the onions.
All the authorities ask: wait a minute, what’s happening here? Some of the milk is going to enter the onion. Forget the milk in the pot that already has sixty parts; some milk is going into the onion. The authorities say that this milk in the onion “cholek makom le’atzmo”: it has its own place there. It comes in contact with the meat inside, and this milk now becomes basar ve-chalav.
When that milk comes out, you’re going to need sixty parts against it. It’s tricky to establish that, because it has the same taste. It would even be hard to give it to a kafeila, a taster, because when you say Chanan by a piece of chalav that falls into chalav, you won’t be able to taste it. It’s always easy for a taster to taste when you have meat and milk, because there is a taste. But here, the milk went into the onions. That milk in the onion, if it has its own place there, comes in contact with the meat in the onion. What happens to the milk now? Basar ve-chalav. It probably still tastes like milk, but especially when it falls into the milk in the pot, you’re going to need another sixty parts—not only against the meat, but against this milk as well.
Furthermore, once this Chanan is created in the onion, it makes the onion Chanan. Basar ve-chalav makes the onion Chanan. As we said, a prohibition can create another prohibition. So, seemingly, the whole onion should become Chanan, and you should need sixty parts against the whole onion.
Even if you understand the case the way the later authorities do—as meat absorbed in onions that fell into a pot of milk—the ruling would seemingly be wrong. You shouldn’t need sixty parts against the meat; you should need sixty parts against the whole onion. I’ll explain again. This onion had meat in it, an olive-sized measure of meat, and three olive-sized measures of onion. It fell into the pot. Let’s say the milk had sixty parts against the meat. Maran tells you, “Yochlu anavim veyisba’u” (They will eat grapes and be satisfied); everything is muttar. The milk is muttar because you have shishim against the meat. You didn’t have to count against the onions anyway, because the onions don’t become prohibited.
The later authorities say, “Hold on; it’s not so simple.” The milk is going into the onion, and it will seemingly come in contact with the meat in the onion. Both things happen: the meat goes out and the milk goes in. The meat goes out, and you have sixty parts against it. But the milk also goes into the onion. Call it an olive-sized measure of milk. It will come in contact with the meat and become basar ve-chalav before we even get to Chanan. That will come out, and now you need sixty parts against both the olive-sized measure of meat and the olive-sized measure of milk that became basar ve-chalav.
The later authorities ask further: once that olive-sized measure becomes basar ve-chalav inside the onion, it makes the onion Chanan. Then, seemingly, you need sixty parts against the three olive-sized measures of onion plus the fourth olive-sized measure—the whole thing. They want to understand how we reconcile Maran’s ruling.
Now let’s read Maran. In Tzadi-Daled, subsection daled, he says: “Batzal ve-yerekot she-belu’im mi-basar, u-veshalam be-kedeirah cholevet, im yadu’a kamah basar balu’a babetzalim u-vayerakot, ein tzarich shishim ela keneged habasar.” The gloss says: “De-lo shayach lomar chatichah na’asit neveilah, ve-harei hu adayin kulo heiter, ve-lachen ein tzarich lesha’er ela keneged mah she-bala.” Beautiful. That’s all nice. Everyone, how do we answer the later authorities’ questions if they understand the case that way?
Can I answer with the Ramban’s words? One-way? Meat going out does not absorb? Because there were sixty parts in the milk. You had sixty parts in the milk, so the meat cannot prohibit the milk. Although the milk that goes in will become prohibited, is that one-way? The milk becomes prohibited through contact with the meat, and the meat prohibits it. The learning is mamashuto de'inyana. That’s the way the authorities learn it: mamashuto de'inyana. That is why it is not nat bar nat, and that is why they all ask the Beit Yosef why he called it nat bar nat.
“Zeh bazeh,” yes, the milk will prohibit the matter, and they will seemingly prohibit each other. You don’t have sixty parts against either one inside the onion, I’m saying. The meat prohibits the milk, and the milk prohibits the meat inside the onion. What does it prohibit? They prohibit one another. The meat would not prohibit the milk in the pot, because the milk in the pot has sixty parts against the meat. “In the pot, not in the onion, but it’s connected to the pot.” Okay, maybe that works. That’s a good answer; I hadn’t thought of it.
How do the authorities answer this? Some answer—I have to look at my notes, but if I’m not mistaken, the Pri Megadim says—that in this case we can be lenient and don’t have to count against the milk. This milk coming out is min bemino (same-kind mixture) with the milk in the pot, and mide'oraita (by Torah law) min bemino is nullified in a majority. In this case, then, even though the milk is seemingly prohibited, because it comes in contact with the same kind of milk, we can be lenient. You don’t need sixty parts against the meat and another sixty parts against the milk.
That is the problem: if you say Chanan applies inside, then the onion is also a problem. The authorities have a problem with that answer. What is the other answer I saw to resolve the Beit Yosef? The other question is that the milk inside the meat in the onion should seemingly become prohibited, and you could have sixty parts against it.
“If it all comes out at the same time.” If it all comes out in one second. Will it all come out in one second? All the milk that goes in will be nullified. “But all the milk could go in.” How much milk could enter that onion? It’s limited; only so much can fit. An olive-sized measure, whatever can go in—not a lot. The pot is much larger. You’re right that when the substance comes out it could be nullified, but what goes in goes in, especially if you hold. And there is a greater proof from the Gemara in Chullin daf kuf-chet, that this is how you look at it: “cholek makom le’atzmo,” and all that milk inside the piece there.
Beli neder, at 11:45 I’ll give you the other answer. I have to look at my notes. There is another famous resolution to reconcile Maran’s view. Again, the goal now is to finish vav, finish vav with the Nosei Keilim (commentaries on the code), and go to zayin. Maybe we can even start discussing zayin. We’ll finish at 11:45 or 11:50, or 12:00. We’ll learn for an hour, finish this with the answer I want to look up, and then go to zayin.