25) A DROP OF MILK FALLING ONTO A HOT PIECE OF MEAT IN A POT

If one inadvertently spilled milk over a piece of meat cooking in a pot, we need to establish the exact positioning of the meat before we can proceed:

1)      SUBMERGED;

If the meat is submerged within the liquid in which it is cooking (even thought the upper surface of the meat is exposed), we can consider EVERYTHING in the pot to be a single entity to make up the SHISHIM (60) to nullify the effect of the milk. This is because the heat from the cooking process causes the milk to spread evenly throughout all the contents of the pot.[1] The fact that the meat is submerged makes it an intrinsic part of the rest of the pot.

2)      EXPOSED;

However, if the piece of meat is exposed and is situated above the waterline of the pot (say it is resting on top of another piece of meat that is half in and half out of the cooking liquid), and as soon as the milk spills, one immediately and actively pushes that piece of meat under the waterline (and keeps it submerged for a while) – the same abovementioned law would apply and ALL the contents of the pot would be considered one entity to make up the SHISHIM (60).

Another solution that would achieve a similar result, would be to immediately place the lid onto the pot. This would cause the entire pot to become a single closed system, and thereby spread the milk evenly throughout (even though the meat onto which the milk spilled is still  

‘exposed’).

If one did not think fast enough and immediately push the meat down or close the lid, the spilled milk would remain ‘isolated’ within the exposed piece of meat, and we would not be able to rely on the SHISHIM (60) principle[2]. The reason being that the exposed meat remains ‘detached’, and cannot merge with the rest of the contents of the pot to create SHISHIM (60) to nullify the milk.  It therefore becomes a forbidden entity of Basar BeChalav.

The question now remains as what effect this exposed piece of meat has on the rest of the pot.

Here we have divided opinion:

1)      VIEW OF THE SHACH:

If the meat in question is lean and non-fatty, then all the adjoining pieces of meat it makes contact with, become forbidden up to KDEI NETILAH (2cm or ¾ inch). This means that we would have to remove 2cm or ¾ inch from the supporting pieces of meat, and the rest of the contents are permissible.

The reason for this is that lean meat cannot spread TA’AM (taste) up to more than KDEI NETILAH (2cm or ¾ inch) into a neighbouring piece of meat.

If the meat in question, however, is fatty, then the only remedy is to find SHISHIM (60) in the rest of the pot. The reason for this is that fatty meat does spread TA’AM (taste) throughout the entire contents of the pot.

2)      VIEW OF TAZ (AND MOST OTHER POSKIM):

It makes no difference whether the exposed meat is fatty or lean, it simply has to be removed from the pot, and everything else remaining is permissible.

The reason is a fascinating one: If milk (which itself is considered ‘lean’) falls onto a piece of meat, it remains ‘trapped’ within the meat and cannot be transferred without ROTEV (liquid or gravy). Thus if it remains ‘dry’, as it would be in this exposed piece of meat, it would never leave the meat to affect the rest of the pot.

The only TAAM (taste) that would transfer from this ‘dry’ piece of meat would be the taste of the meat itself (as there still is much heat from the cooking process). But that taste of meat, although emanating from a forbidden entity of BASAR BeCHALAV, is still only considered to be a pure and singular taste of meat alone.

This is an amazing example of tastes ‘splitting up’ and reverting to independent states. All because of the principle that milk (which is considered lean), cannot leave the meat into which it became absorbed, without ROTEV (liquid).

This can be compared to a garment of SHA’ATNEZ (a forbidden mixture of wool and linen), where although it is a forbidden entity (like BASAR BeCHALAV), were the threads of wool and linen to separate, each thread would revert back to its original permissible state. (In a similar vein, the taste of meat, once separated from the milk, reverts back to its original permissible state.)

Of course the SHACH would disagree with this analysis, suggesting a different fundamental understanding of the technical entity of BASAR BeCHALAV: It is not a MIXTURE of milk and meat (that were the two to become separated as in our example, they would revert back to their original permissible states), but rather it is a NEW ENTITY of forbidden substance (and accordingly, the tastes can never be separated back to permissible states).

In any event, were our forbidden piece of exposed meat, to fall back into the pot, all would agree that we would need SHISHIM (60) in the pot to nullify it.          

[Daf 37, 38, 39 40, Seif 1-8]

---

[1] At first glance, this may not seem to be beneficial, having milk spreading throughout the meat contents. But it actually is, because now we can apply the SHISHIM principle; that milk can be nullified by the meat, provided there is 60 times more meat against the volume of the milk.

[2] Unless, of course, the exposed meat itself is large enough to be 60 times more the volume of the milk, in which case it would nullify the spilled milk.

24) MILK SPILLING INTO A POT OF COOKING MEAT

If one inadvertently spills milk into a pot in which meat is cooking, we need to ascertain whether there is SHISHIM (60 times more meat against the milk). If there is, the meat is absolutely permissible.

We may count EVERYTHING in the pot (i.e. the meat, water, gravy and spices etc) as one entity to make up the 60.

If there is not SHISHIM (60 times more meat against the milk), then the entire contents of the pot become BASAR BeCHALAV, and are prohibited.

Were a piece of meat from such a forbidden entity further to fall into a second pot of cooking meat, we would also require SHISHIM (60) in the second pot. However this time the SHISHIM (60) would have to be against the ENTIRE piece of meat, and not just against the original amount of milk that spilled into the first pot.

The reason for this is because the meat that fell into the second pot became a ‘new’ forbidden entity. (The prohibited entity ‘expanded’ larger than the original ‘drop’ of milk that was the source of the problem in the beginning.)

This ‘expansion’ of an Issur (prohibition) is known as CHATICHA NA’ASET NEVEILAH (The ENTIRE piece becomes a mixture of BASAR BeCHALAV).

If the second pot contains SHISHIM (60 times more meat against the ENTIRE piece of meat that fell from the first pot), it is absolutely permissible. However the piece that fell in would have to be removed (provided it remains easily identifiable).

If the piece of meat in question is not readily identifiable, (as it resembles the other pieces from the second pot) the procedure is as follows:

a)      If it is a small piece of meat (with no CHASHIVUT or ‘prominence’), we need not worry about it remaining inside, as long as there is a ROV (a simple majority of two against one). And the entire second pot would be permissible even though we know the NEVEILAH (prohibited entity) is still inside.[1]

b)      If it is a large piece of meat (with CHASHIVUT or ‘prominence’)[2], it can never be BATUL (nullified) and ALL the large pieces of meat would be equally prohibited. Thus all the large pieces would have to be removed, BUT the rest of food in the pot would be absolutely permissible.

[Daf 36, Seif 3,4,5,6]

---

[1] However, according to the RAMO, LeChatchila (in the first instance), the Minhag (custom) is to remove ANY one of the small pieces, before eating the rest. Either way, no ONE INDIVIDUAL should eat ALL the food by him/herself.

[2] This would be determined by whether or not we would be prepared to serve a guest this quantity of meat as a single main course. Something with Chashivut (prominence), can never be Batul (nullified).

23) A PIECE OF MEAT FALLING INTO A POT OF HOT MILK

If a piece of meat inadvertently falls into a pot of hot milk (that was above 45 degrees centigrade), we need to ascertain whether or not there is 60 times more milk against the meat.

If there is SHISHIM (60 times more milk against the meat), the milk is absolutely permissible.

(The piece of meat, however, would have to be disposed of, as it becomes a prohibited mixture of BASAR BeCHALAV)[1].

If there is not SHISHIM (60) in the milk, then both the piece of meat and all the milk are prohibited.

The reason why we require SHISHIM (60 times more milk against the meat), is simply because of the following conundrum; We know that the heat in the milk will cause the piece of meat to expel TAAM (taste). But we are unsure just how much TAAM (taste) will be expelled. So we err on the side of caution and assume that TAAM (taste) gets expelled from the ENTIRE piece of meat.

Hence the mathematical calculation becomes a simple one; measure the volume of the entire piece of meat - measure the volume of all the milk, and see whether there is 60 times more volume of milk against the volume of meat.

[Daf 35, Siman 2, Perek 1, Seif 1,2]

---

[1] In the original Hebrew text it states; ‘VeZORKAH’ (that the meat has to be ‘THROWN AWAY’. I can only surmise that it means BURRIED, and not just thrown away. See post 5) WHAT TO DO WITH A COOKED ENTITY OF MEAT AND MILK. 

22) CUTTING HOT MEAT WITH A SHEINO BAT YUMA MILK KNIFE

If one inadvertently cut a hot piece of meat (above 45 degree centigrade) with a SHEINO BAT YUMA[1] milk knife, the meat is permissible for eating. This is because the invisible TAAM (taste) absorbed within the knife is PAGUM (‘blemished’ or inactive), and therefore cannot affect the meat in any way.

However, one would have to remove KDEI KLIPAH (the thinnest slither we can cut from the meat without it flaking), from both sides of the cut.

The reason for removing KDEI KLIPAH is because we assume that a common knife has SHAMNUNIT (a fatty residue on the surface), and this fat may be absorbed up to a maximum depth of a ‘slither’. [2]

Regarding the knife itself (whether it was BAT YUMA or SHEINO BAT YUMA, and whether or not there was SHISHIM (60 times more meat to cancel out the effect of the milk) – the knife always has to be KASHERED by boiling. This is because in every situation (even where the meat is permissible), the knife absorbed the TAAM (taste) of meat.[3]

In a case where we are uncertain as to the BEN YUMA status of the knife (or any other vessel such as a spoon, fork, plate or pot)[4], we can rely on the (lenient) assumption that the average vessel is SHEINO BAT YUMA (and was last used more than 24 hours ago.[5]   

[Daf 34, Seif 3,4,5]

---

[1] A milk knife that was last used to cut something milchik more than 24 hours ago.

[2] See previous post for further explanation.

[3] It would be most unlikely to have a situation where there is 60 times more knife against the meat.

[4] i.e. we are uncertain as to when last the vessel or implement was used.

[5] HEBREW; STAM KEILIM EINAM BNEI YOMAN.

21) CUTTING HOT MEAT WITH A BAT YUMA MILK KNIFE

21) CUTTING HOT MEAT WITH A BAT YOMO MILK KNIFE

If one inadvertently cut a hot piece of meat (above 45 degrees centigrade), with a BAT YOMO[1] milk knife, the heat of the meat will cause the invisible milk TAAM (taste) present within the knife, to be expelled and be absorbed into the meat.

(Because the knife was last used within 24 hours for cutting milchiks, the milk taste is considered to be active, and when it makes contact with the hot meat, it gets absorbed within the meat.)

To remedy the situation, we require 60 times more meat against the section of knife that made contact with the meat.[2]

If the person is uncertain as to how much of the knife contacted the meat, the assumption is made that ALL of the knife did indeed touch the meat, EXCLUDING the handle. We would thus require 60 times more meat against the cutting section of the knife.

However, assuming we do have 60 times more meat against the TAAM (taste) of milk in the knife, the meat would not yet be permitted for eating until we remove KDEI KLIPAH (the thinnest slither we can cut from the meat without it flaking). KDEI KLIPAH would have to be removed from both sides of the cut.

The reason for removing KDEI KLIPAH is because we assume that a common knife has SHAMNUNIT (a fatty residue on the surface), and this fat may be absorbed up to a maximum depth of a ‘slither’. This assumption is based on the idea that people are not as concerned about cleaning knives as they are about cleaning forks. Forks enter into the mouth and therefore people are more concerned about their cleanliness – whereas many are less fussy about knives which are sometimes shared.

{There is a stricter view that maintains that it is insufficient to remove KDEI KLIPAH (a slither), and requires KDEI NETILAH (approximately 2cm or ¾ inch) to be removed from both sides of the cut. The reason for this stricter opinion is the assumption that perhaps not all the TAAM (taste) of the milk will spread throughout the entire piece of meat. It may only spread locally (up to 2cm on either side of the cut), and in that relatively small area there certainly would not be 60 time more meat against the milk. Thus the entire 2cm area are would have to be removed.

According to the first view, the assumption is that the TAAM (taste) does spread throughout the entire piece of meat, and is nullified by SHISHIM (60), and all we are concerned about is the absorption of fat up to KDEI KLIPAH (a slither).}

[Daf 33, Perek 4, Seif 1,2]

---

[1] A milk knife that was last used to cut something milchik within the last 24 hours.

[2] There is a view that, in such a case, we would not rely on simply asking the person if he remembers how much of the knife made contact with the meat. This is because of the principle which states that ‘unless the object in question is actually in front of the person at the time, he is not precisely aware of all the details surrounding it.’

20) INSERTING A MILK SPOON INTO A MEAT POT (Continued)

If one inserted a SHE’EINO BAT YOMO[1] milk spoon into a meat pot that had meat cooking in it, the meat will remain unaffected by the spoon, because the TAAM (taste) of milk in the spoon is PAGUM (ineffective). This would be true even if there is not 60 times more meat than the volume of the spoon.

However the milk spoon itself would require HAGALAH (kashering by boiling), because it now absorbed a TAAM (taste) of meat[2]. 

[Daf 32, Seif 7,8]

---

[1] A spoon that was last used more than 24 hours ago.

[2] Until the milk spoon is kashered, we would not be allowed to use it further for either;

1)       milk, because is just absorbed a fresh taste of meat, or

2)       meat, because under Rabbinical law, we may not LECHATCHILAH (at the outset) use a milk implement (even if it was last used more than 24 hours ago) for meat.

19) INSERTING A MILK SPOON INTO A MEAT POT

If one inadvertently inserted a BAT YUMA [1] milk spoon into a meat pot that had meat cooking in it, the cooking process causes the active TAAM (taste) of the milk that was already absorbed within the spoon, to get expelled from the spoon and enter into the meat.

Since we are not sure exactly how much milk TAAM (taste) from the spoon gets expelled and absorbed into the meat – we err on the side of caution and assume that there is milk in the volume of the metal of the spoon in the section that entered into the pot.[2]

                              

So now we need to measure the volume of meat and ascertain if there is 60 times more meat against the volume of (a section of) the milk spoon.

If there is, the meat is permitted, but the milk spoon would need to be KASHERED by boiling, because it now absorbed a TAAM (taste) of meat.

If there is not, the entire quantity of meat is prohibited – and the meat pot would also become prohibited since it has now absorbed a TAAM (taste) of BASAR BECHALAV (meat and milk), and would also need to be KASHERED by boiling.

[Daf 31,32. Seif 5,6.]

---

[1] A utensil used within the last 24 hours.

[2] There is, however, some debate over exactly which section of the spoon we reference for the calculation of SHISHIM (60). Imagine a cross-section of a spoon inserted into a pot containing, say, meat soup. There would clearly be three distinct areas: 

1) The section above the brim of the pot which is exposed entirely to the air. 

2) The section below the brim but above the surface of the soup.

3) The section in, and below the surface of, the soup.

According to all views, the first section exposed entirely to the air, need not be brought into the calculation, because it is unaffected by the heat of the cooking process.

According to most views, the second and third sections are to be measured, because they are the sections affected by the cooking process (either by the liquid or the steam).

According to one view (that of the Chochmas Adam), it is only the third section which is in the actual soup, that need to be measured. This last view is obviously the most lenient view since with a smaller volume of spoon we are more likely to find 60 times more meat.