Nullification of Prohibited Mixtures

Part I 

Every kosher household has certain guidelines in order to ensure that no non-kosher ingredients are used in the kitchen.  Sometimes a mistake will occur and an ingredient of questionable kashrut will get used in the food preparation process.  In this series, we will discuss some of the principles that a rabbi will use to determine whether the food and utensils used in that process have become non-kosher.  This issue will discuss liquid and cooked mixtures and the next issue will discuss dry mixtures. 

The Concept of Ta'am K'Ikar 

A liquid or cooked mixture is unique in that all of the ingredients are inseparable.  If the mixture is rendered kosher, it is kosher despite the fact that when consuming the mixture, one will certainly consume the non-kosher ingredient that was mixed in.  Because one is consuming the entire mixture, the standards of nullification are such that the non-kosher ingredient must be insignificant within the mixture.  For this reason the Gemara, Chullin 97a, states that a non-kosher ingredient is nullified if its taste is not detectable within the mixture.  The Gemara states that this can sometimes be accomplished by someone tasting the mixture and if that is not possible, one should assume that a non-kosher is nullified when the kosher ingredients are sixty times greater in volume than the non-kosher ingredient.  Shach, Yoreh De'ah 98:5, notes that use of a taster to determine the presence of an ingredient is reserved for very limited circumstances and one should assume that the ordinary standard for nullification is a sixty to one ratio. 

The basis for setting presence of taste as the standard of nullification is based on the concept of ta'am k'ikar, the taste is considered a primary component of the mixture.  According to Rashi, Chullin 98b, s.v. L'Ta'am, ta'am k'ikar in ordinary mixtures is only a rabbinic concept.  On a biblical level, the status of all mixtures is determined by the majority of the mixture.  On a rabbinic level, the rabbis required nullification of sixty to one.  Rabbeinu Tam, Sefer HaYashar, Chelek HaTeshuvot no. 56, disagrees and maintains that ta'am k'ikar is a biblical concept and therefore, the standard for nullification of a mixture is sixty to one. 

[It should be noted that the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam is limited to mixtures of two different kinds (min b'she'aino mino e.g. non-kosher meat and vegetables).  If the mixtures are of the same kind (min b'mino, e.g. kosher chicken and non-kosher chicken), Rabbeinu Tam agrees that on a biblical level, the status of the mixture is determined by the majority and the requirement for nullification of sixty to one is only rabbinic in nature.  Incidentally, Rashi, Chullin 109a, s.v. V'Tu, rules that there is no nullification of mixtures that are of the same kind.  It should also be noted that there is a dispute regarding how to determine what is considered min b'mino and what is considered min b'she'aino mino.  See Rama, Yoreh De'ah 98:2, Shach, Yoreh De'ah 98:6 and HaDaf Acharon L'HaTurei Zahav, no. 98.] 

Rabbeinu Asher, Chullin 7:31, notes a practical difference between Rashi's opinion and Rabbeinu Tam's opinion regarding whether ta'am k'ikar is a biblical concept.  Suppose a non-kosher ingredient fell into a mixture and it is not possible to determine whether there is a sixty to one ratio of kosher to non-kosher.  According to Rashi, the question is of rabbinic nature (assuming that the kosher ingredients definitely comprise majority of the mixture) and one may be lenient based on the concept of safek d'rabanan l'kula, on questions of rabbinic law, one may be lenient on matters of doubt.  However, according to Rabbeinu Tam, this question is of biblical nature and one must employ the principle of safek d'oraita l'chumra, on questions of biblical law, one must be stringent regarding matters of doubt.  Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 98:2, rules that if there is a question whether there a sixty to one ratio (in a mixture of min b'she'aino mino), one must be stringent. 

R. Yechiel M. Rabinowitz, Afikei Yam 2:32, notes another practical difference between Rashi's opinion and Rabbeinu Tam's opinion.  In a previous issue, we discussed the question of someone who is in a life-threatening situation on Shabbat that requires him to eat meat.  He can either slaughter an animal on Shabbat and violate Shabbat or eat non-kosher meat.  For a number of reasons, Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 328:14, rules that it is preferable to slaughter an animal rather than eat non-kosher.  One of the reasons for this ruling is based on the comments of Rabbeinu Nissim, Yoma 4b, s.v. V'Garsinan.  Rabbeinu Nissim notes that although violation of Shabbat bears a more severe punishment, in this case, only one violation of Shabbat is required.  If he chooses to eat the non-kosher meat, he will violate non-kosher many times (one violation for each k'zayit).  Rabbeinu Nissim rules that it is preferable to violate a more severe prohibition one time than to violate a less severe prohibition many times. 

R. Rabinowitz notes that the most common case of an ill person requiring meat on Shabbat is one where the ill person requires soup and not actual meat.  He observes that the ruling on soup may have a different outcome depending on whether one follows the opinion of Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam.  According to Rabbeinu Tam, the violation of eating non-kosher meat soup is just as severe as eating the meat itself.  However, according to Rashi, if the meat is removed from the soup, eating the soup would only constitute a rabbinic violation.  As such, Rabbeinu Nissim would concede that if one was left with the option of violating Shabbat one time in order to save a life or to violate multiple rabbinic violations that it is preferable to violate multiple rabbinic violations. [Mishna Berurah 328:39, also assumes that according to Rabbeinu Nissim, it is preferable to violate multiple rabbinic violations.]  R. Rabinowitz further notes that both R. Chaim Soloveitchik and R. Simcha Z. Riger agree that one should follow the opinion of Rashi in this situation.  R. Chaim Soloveitchik explains that although Shulchan Aruch rules that in cases of doubt whether there is a sixty to one ratio, one should be stringent, that ruling does not necessarily indicate that Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is accepted in all cases.  Perhaps we only follow Rabbeinu Tam's opinion as a matter of stringency. 

Chatichah Atzmah Na'asit Neveilah 

Suppose a non-kosher liquid was mixed into a kosher chicken soup and the ratio of kosher to non-kosher is thirty to one.  The soup is certainly non-kosher because the taste of the non-kosher liquid is assumed to be present in the soup.  Suppose a portion of the chicken soup was mixed into a vegetable soup and the ratio of vegetable soup to chicken soup is five to one.  In reality, one should not be able to taste the non-kosher liquid because it was diluted at a ratio of thirty to one and then that mixture was diluted at a ratio of five to one, making the actual ratio of the vegetable soup to the non-kosher liquid one hundred and fifty to one.  However, it is arguable that when the chicken soup was mixed into the vegetable soup, the chicken soup was inherently non-kosher and the only way to nullify the chicken soup is if there are sixty parts vegetable soup to one part chicken soup. 

This issue is the subject of a dispute between Rabbeinu Tam and Rabbeinu Ephraim (cited in Tosafot, Chullin 100a, s.v. B'SheKadam and Rabbeinu Asher, Chullin 7:38).  Tosafot imply that Rabbeinu Tam's opinion is that when an item becomes prohibited because of the presence of taste of a non-kosher ingredient, the non-kosher ingredient can now only be nullified in a mixture that is sixty times the volume of the original item that absorbed the non-kosher ingredient.  This concept is called chatichah atzmah na'asit neveilah, the item that absorbed non-kosher is itself non-kosher.  In the case we mentioned previously, Rabbeinu Tam would require a sixty to one ratio of vegetable soup to chicken soup in order to render the mixture kosher.  Rabbeinu Ephraim disagrees and maintains that chatichah atzmah na'asit neveilah is a concept that is limited to mixtures of (kosher) meat and milk.  Mixtures containing other forms of non-kosher are not subject to chatichah atzmah na'asit neveilah.  Therefore, in the case we mentioned previously, as long as the ratio of vegetable soup to the original non-kosher liquid is sixty one, the vegetable soup is kosher.  [Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 92:4, rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbeinu Ephraim.  Rama ad loc., rules in accordance with the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam with certain exceptions.] 

R. Avraham ben Yehuda, Yad Avraham, Glosses to Rama, Yoreh De'ah 92:4, notes that Rabbeinu Tam's opinion regarding chatichah atzmah na'asit neveilah is dependent on his opinion regarding ta'am k'ikar.  According to Rabbeinu Tam, when a non-kosher ingredient is mixed into a mixture and its taste is present, the non-kosher taste is now considered a primary part of the mixture and the mixture is transformed into an inherently prohibited mixture.  Therefore, if one wants to nullify that mixture, the standards for nullification are sixty times the entire mixture and not just the original ingredient.  [Yad Avraham's comments are based on the assumption that chatichah atzmah na'asit neveilah in non-milk-and-meat mixtures is biblically prohibited according to Rabbeinu Tam.  This seems to be the opinion of Tosafot, Chullin, 100a, s.v. B'SheKadam.  However, Rabbeinu Nissim, Chullin 44a, assumes that one can only apply chaticha atzmah na'asit neveilah to non-milk-and-meat mixtures on a rabbinic level.]