Ron’s classic exposition on the laws of kashrut TB Nedarim 52

Explaining today’s daf TB Nedarim 52, the Ron ד"ה וְנִתְעָרֵב בְּאַחֵר, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם אָסוּר gives a master class in kashrut. First the Mishna. “One who vows that meat is forbidden to him is permitted to eat gravy and sediments of boiled meat [kifa]. But Rabbi Yehuda maintains that he is prohibited from eating them. Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident where one took such a vow and Rabbi Tarfon prohibited us from even eggs that were cooked with meat. The Rabbis said to him: Indeed so, but when is this the halakha? When he says: This meat is forbidden to me, referring to a specific piece of meat. This is because in the case of one who vows that an item is forbidden to him, and it becomes mixed into another item, if the latter contains an amount of the forbidden food that gives it flavor, i.e., the forbidden food can be tasted in the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden. Likewise, one who vows that wine is forbidden to him is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the flavor of wine.” (Sefaria.org translation)  

An underlining kashrut principle is “the taste of a forbidden food is like that of its substance (טַעַם כְּעִיקָּר)”. By adding 60 more parts of the permitted food to the forbidden food the taste is annulled (בָּטִיל בְּשִׁשׁים). The forbidden food is considered as never having been in existence. The exception is food that has a very strong taste like spices. An example would be pepper. These strong taste are never annulled (אפילו באלף לא בטיל).

According to the Mishna if we add food to exceed the 60:1 threshold, the food is permitted to the one who made the vow. The Ran cites the halakhic principal “Any object whose prohibition is temporary is not nullified, even by a thousand permitted items as a refutation of our Mishna. Since its prohibition will lapse on its own, there is no need to make use of the option of nullification. (דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בָּטֵיל.).” This principle contradicts the Mishna’s ruling. We studied the classic case in massehket Beitza. We are forbidden to eat an egg laid on a holiday. If this egg gets mixed up with no matter how many other eggs, all the eggs are forbidden until the holiday is over. Once the holiday is over, all the eggs are permitted. The mixtures in the Mishna like the wine does have a temporary prohibition for the one who made the vow can have it annulled by consulting a rabbi. Once the vow is annulled, the wine is permitted. Seemingly, the rule in the Mishna should have prohibited the wine even if the 60:1 ratio is achieved because its prohibition is only temporary.

The Ron answers this problem. He says “Any object whose prohibition is temporary is not nullified, even by a thousand permitted items” only applies to cases when the mixture is of same things (מִין בְּמִינוֹ). For example, that unfortunately egg laid on the holiday is mixed up with eggs that would be permitted to eat on the holiday. Since the mixture contains a forbidden egg with permitted eggs, the entire mixture is forbidden until after the holiday is over. But in the case when the mixture contains two different items (מין באינו מינו) as in the case of the Mishnah of wine cooked with other foods we can apply the annulment rule of 60:1.

Why make this distinction? The Ron cites the tannaitic disagreement when comes to a mixture of the same things (מִין בְּמִינוֹ). The sages permits it to be annulled while Rabbi Yehuda forbids it to be annulled. The case being discussed involves the Hakohen Hagadol, High Priest, on Yom Kippur. Part of the service involves first sprinkling the blood of a bull, then sprinkling the blood of a goat, and finally sprinkling a mixture of the bloods of the bull and the goat together. Obviously there is a lot more bull blood then goat blood. Why don’t we say that the bull’s blood overwhelms the goat’s blood and annuls it? Rabbi Yehuda says exactly. We have a mixture of two same things, blood, and they are not annulled.

The Ron explains that the sages agree only in the case of Yom Kippur there is no annulment; however, everywhere else there is a possibility of annulment. The rabbis agree in the case of Yom Kippur with Rabbi Yehuda. There is no contrast between the two items, they are both permitted blood; consequently, there is no annulment. In the other cases there is a contrast, albeit a halakhic one. One item is permitted and the other one is forbidden. Because of that contrast the sages say there is the possibility of annulment.

The case of an object whose prohibition is only temporary (דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין אֲפִילּוּ בְּאֶלֶף לֹא בָּטֵיל.)” removes the contrast. That unfortunately egg laid on the holiday’s prohibition is only transitory. Ultimately, there will be no contrast. After the holiday all the eggs will be the same. That is why there is no possibility of annulment.

In cases of unlike items in a mixture, (מין באינו מינו), we always have a contrast; consequently, there is the possibility of annulment. Now we understand how the Mishna could rule “one who vows that wine is forbidden to him is permitted to eat a cooked dish that has the flavor of wine.” This is the Ron’s great hiddush, new understanding, of a classic kashrut term.