Kashrut: NTL and Ben Yomo

(1) Any forbidden thing with a rancid taste cannot render a mixture prohibited. And even a case where the item's taste is not rancid by itself, but rather tasty and enhancing, but if it is rancid in this mixture, the mixture is permitted. Rema: However, important things, like a biryah (complete organism) and other similar things, if they do not themselves have a rancid taste, even if they make the mixture taste worse, they are not nullified, even in a thousand times their volume.

(28) Wir haben bereits erklärt, dass, wenn ein verbotener Gegenstand einen Beigeschmack bei einem erlaubten bewirkt, die ganze Mischung verboten wird; dies gilt aber nur dann, wenn der Geschmack dadurch gewonnen hat; war aber der von dem verbotenen Gegenstand hinzugekommene Geschmack ein nachteiliger; so dass der erlaubte Gegenstand dadurch an Geschmack verlor, so bleibt die Mischung erlaubt. Jedoch findet diese Regel nur dann ihre Anwendung., wenn die Geschmacksverschlimmerung eine bleibende ist, war sie hingegen nur eine vorübergehende, so dass der Geschmack nachher wieder gut wird, oder war die Geschmacksveränderung vorteilhaft, wenn auch nur vorübergehend, so dass der Geschmack nachher sich verschlimmern müsste, so bleibt das Verbot in voller Kraft.

(5) Any pot which is not bat yoma is considered [that] its taste is detrimental and it is does not make forbidden [food cooked in it]. And it is called "bat yoma" all time that it has not sat from one moment to another moment that the forbidden thing was cooked in it, and once “from one moment to another moment that the forbidden thing was cooked in it” has passed [i.e. it has sat for 24 hours since the forbidden food was cooked in it] it is not called bat yoma. And if one cooked in it when it was not bat yoma, the cooked food is permissible for this will be a “giving a detrimental flavor” and this is [only] that [the pot] is rinsed such that there isn’t any residue on the inside, and if one did not rinse it, it makes things [cooked in it] forbidden and this is like a piece of forbidden [food] that is not detrimental. And there are those who allow even [the food that] one cooked in it before rinsing it. NOTE: And if there are 60 against that which was stuck to its inside, everyone [agrees that this is] permissible from when the pot is not bat yoma. And this is how one acts.

(7) A pot that has absorbed from meat and milk that were cooked in it together or one after the other, and before a night had passed water was heated in it, it is considered bat yoma until it will have sat 24 hours from the time that the water was heated in it. NOTE: But if a night has passed, [it is] permitted. And likewise if a night passed between cooking meat and milk, even though water was heated immediately afterwards, the law is likewise thus. And this is the law for all forbidden items according to what is established for us regarding all forbidden items [that] a piece is transformed to non-kosher [meat]. And look above at siman 92. And in a place of loss it is worth permitting this behavior for all forbidden items in all matters, so long as there are 24 hours from the time of cooking the forbidden item.

(1) Do not roast kosher meat with non-kosher meat or meat of an unclean animal in the same oven, even if they do not touch one another. But if you did roast them, this is permitted - and even if the piece of forbidden meat was very fatty and the piece of permitted meat was lean. But if the oven is large enough to hold 12 esronim, and its mouth is open, then it is permitted to roast them in it as long as they do not touch one another. And if one of them is covered with a bowl or with dough or the like, it is permitted to roast them, even in a small oven with a closed mouth. Comment: The same is true for meat with milk - the ruling is also thus. And it is customary to be strict before the fact, even with a large oven, and after the fact to be lenient even with a small oven. But, if one baked a loaf of bread with meat, it is forbidden to eat it with milk if he has another loaf. And thus if an idolator baked a loaf of bread with something prohibited, it is prohibited to buy that loaf if he has another loaf - because all this is an instance of "before the fact." But if he has no other loaf available, both are permitted, because this is an instance of "after the fact." There are some who say that we do not permit on the basis of smell not being an issue, even after the fact, unless the oven is open from the side or above where the smoke can escape. But in a case of financial loss we are not stringent after the fact, even if the oven is completely closed. If the prohibited thing is pungent, and all the more so if the permitted thing is pungent, smell is an issue and even after the fact it is prohibited, if the two of them are uncovered. But if one of them is covered, even as is common with dough, it is permitted. If they baked or roasted a prohibited thing and a permitted thing under one (covered) frying pan, uncovered (from one another) this is prohibited even after the fact. The same is true if they baked a loaf of bread with meat in such a manner, it is prohibited to eat it with milk. But one after the other there is no concern, unless there was sweat from the pan in both of them, because this is like the cover of a pot. There are some who say that any time we say smell is an issue and prohibit after the fact, that is specifically because there is not 60 times as much of what is permitted as what is prohibited. But if there is 60 times what is permitted, even among everything that is in the oven, the prohibited thing is nullified. And for the sake of loss this is the custom. Three are some who say that a prohibited thing that prohibits something, for example leavening on Passover, smell is an issue and it prohibits even after the fact, if the oven is small and closed, and the prohibited thing and the permitted thing are uncovered within the oven. There are some who say that we do not differentiate. And in a case of loss it is possible to rely on the words of those who are lenient.