Kashrut & Solidarity Work Part 1: Noten Ta'am Lifgam

(2)This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it, i.e., the forbidden item contributes a positive taste to it, is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, such as forbidden vinegar that fell onto split beans, as the flavor imparted by the vinegar does not enhance the taste of the beans.

§ Rav Kahana says: From the statements of all the amora’im who were cited, namely, Shmuel, Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Reish Lakish, we learn that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it is permitted...The Gemara asks with regard to Rav Kahana’s statement: By inference, is there one who says that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it is forbidden? The Gemara answer: Yes, and this opinion is taught in a baraita: Both in a case where the forbidden food imparts flavor to the detriment of the flavor of the permitted food, and in a case where it imparts flavor that enhances the permitted food, the mixture is forbidden; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon says: If it enhances the flavor it is forbidden, but if it causes it detriment it is permitted. The Gemara explains: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? He derives this halakha from the case of vessels of gentiles that require purging, i.e., vessels that gentiles used for cooking, which the Torah requires that one purge through fire and ritually purify before they may be used by Jews (see Numbers 31:22–23 and mishna on 75b). Is it not the case that vessels of gentiles that require purging impart flavor to food that is cooked in them to their detriment? Since time has passed since the gentiles cooked non-kosher food in the vessels, the flavor that the vessels transmit to food that a Jew cooks in them is certainly detrimental, and yet the Merciful One deems their use prohibited without purging. So too, the case here is no different, and even if the flavor imparted by the forbidden food is a detrimental one, the mixture should be forbidden. And the opinion of the other tanna, Rabbi Shimon, who deems the mixture permitted if the flavor imparted is detrimental, can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya; as Rav Huna, son of Rav Ḥiyya, says: With regard to the vessels of gentiles, the Torah prohibits only a pot that was used for cooking on that very day, which does not yet impart flavor to the detriment of the food cooked in it. Rather, the flavor that it imparts is not considered detrimental... The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? It is as it is taught in a baraita that from the verse: “You shall not eat of any unslaughtered animal carcass; you may give it to the resident alien [la’ger] who is within your gates, that he may eat it” (Deuteronomy 14:21), it is derived that with regard to animal carcasses, anything that is fit for a ger toshav to consume is called an unslaughtered carcass and is forbidden, and any carcass that is unfit even for a ger toshav to consume, e.g., one that turned rancid and is unfit for consumption, is not called an unslaughtered carcass with regard to its prohibition.

And with regard to all utensils that one used before immersing and purging and heating them until white-hot, it is taught in one baraita that the food prepared with them is forbidden, and it is taught in another baraita that the food prepared with them is permitted. The Gemara explains: This contradiction is not difficult. This ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is forbidden, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, the permitted food is forbidden. That ruling, that the food prepared with such utensils is permitted, is according to the one who says that if a forbidden substance imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted. Here too, since the flavor of non-kosher food imparted by the utensil detracts from the flavor of the food, such food is permitted...The Gemara asks: If so, that after a day without use a pot imparts a negative flavor, from that point onward the pot should be permitted. The Gemara answers: There is a rabbinic decree that prohibits use of a pot that was not used by a gentile that same day, due to concern that one will use a pot used by a gentile that same day.

ָAnd the average vessel of a non-Jew (i.e. one about which you don't know explicitly otherwise) is assumed to be aino ben yomo (not used for the past day).

(2) 2. A vessel which is not bat yoma, meaning that the vessel has sat for 24 hours since prohibited substance was cooked in it, this gives a detrimental taste, but even so, the sages forbade cooking in it initially. This is a decree on account of a bat yoma [vessel], whether it absorbed [taste] from a forbidden substance and one wanted to cook something permitted in it, or whether it absorbed some dairy and one wanted to cook meat in it, or the opposite [it absorbed some meat and one wanted to cook some dairy in it].

(3) 3. There are those who say that the negative taste created by the passing of 24 hours is only relevant when the utensil is washed well and all unwanted residue is removed, however if it was not washed well and the unwanted residue is present (be-en), 24 hours does not make the food stale (pagum). Rashba, Tur, and Raavad: Rama: Nevertheless if there is 60 times the food which is present (be-en) the mixture is all permitted because that which was swallowed in the walls of the pot became stale (pagum) and does not require bitul. There are those who say when cooking sharp food, we don't say the food swallowed in the wall has a status of stale as explained above in Siman 95 and 96. Therefore if you cooked in a forbidden pot a dish which is mostly vinegar or spices or other sharp foods, it is forbidden. However we don't consider the dish sharp if it only contains a small amount of spices. However if the forbidden food was sharp and the pot rested for 24 hours and you cooked something permitted in it which is not sharp, the food is permitted because the first sharp food doesn't revitalize forbidden taste. (Aruch klal 38)

(6) Vessels of non-Jews are default assumed to be unused for 24 hours, therefore if someone transgressed and used them before kashering them, the food is kosher. Rema: ...but something made as is, even if it's made by a non-Jew and a Jew is purchasing it from them, this is permitted even from the outset, because since it was already made by the non-Jew, this is considered bdiavad (after the fact).

1) Radish or beets that were cut with a meat knife, used that day or that was not cleaned off are not allowed to be eaten with dairy, until a slice is removed from the location of the cutting that is an "amount to be taken."...There are those who say that this is also the rule with a knife that was not used that day and was cleaned off (because their sharp flavor renders the aino ben yomo flavor positive). And if you did not take the "amount to be taken" and you did not taste it and you cooked it with Milk, you need 60 times the amount that the knife touched, and this is the rule for something that was cut with a knife of a Non-Jew. Rema: If one cuts [a radish] very finely [i.e., dicing], one needs 60 times against the entire radish.

(2) If one cut garlic, onions, leeks, and tamcha (known as krayn) and other things that are similarly sharp, or sour fruits, or salted fish, they all have the same laws as one who cuts a radish.

It appears to me that if one places ash in the hot water in a large pot before washing dishes in the pot, even if there is grease stuck to the plates, it is permissible because the ash mixes with the grease to impart a rancid taste.

In general, the status of a sink is similar to that of a countertop, though in one respect it is less strict because it usually contains soap, which befouls the tastes of foods...

§ It is stated in the mishna: This is the principle: Anything that benefits from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it, i.e., the forbidden item contributes a positive taste to it, is forbidden, and anything that does not benefit from a forbidden item imparting flavor to it is permitted, e.g., forbidden vinegar that fell onto split beans, as the flavor imparted by the vinegar does not enhance the taste of the beans. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: This is the halakha. And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The Sages taught this only with regard to a case where the vinegar fell into hot split beans, imparting flavor to their detriment. But if the vinegar fell into cold split beans, the vinegar enhances the flavor, and if one subsequently heated them, it becomes like a dish that some added ingredient first enhanced its flavor and ultimately detracted from it, and it is rendered forbidden, as the initial flavor that was imparted was beneficial...

§ ...And there are those who say that Reish Lakish states a lenient interpretation of the principle: With regard to that which Sages said that if a forbidden food imparts flavor to a permitted food to the detriment of the mixture, it remains permitted, one does not say that a certain food is forbidden because its flavor was not actually detracted by the forbidden substance, as this dish is lacking in salt or is overabundant in salt, is lacking in spices or is overabundant in spices, and it is for that reason that the forbidden substance detracted from its flavor. Rather, since now, in any event, the forbidden substance detracted from its flavor, it is permitted.

(28) We already explained that if a forbidden substance imparts its flavor to a permitted substance, the entire mixture is not permitted. When does the above apply? [When the flavor imparted] improves [the flavor of the permitted food]. If, however, the forbidden substance detracts from the flavor of the permitted substance and impairs it, it is permitted.See also Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 103:2) which states: "The impairment of the food's flavor does not have to be complete to the extent that one would be disgusted to eat it. Instead, even if it slightly detracts [from its flavor], it does not cause the mixture to become forbidden." [This applies] provided it detracts from its flavor from the beginning until the end. If, however, it detracted from its flavor at the outset, but ultimately improved it or improved it initially, even though it will ultimately detract from it, [the mixture] is forbidden.

Anything that is not lacking (in other respects) and is not eaten (on account of this isur). Rashi explained: "Is not eaten" should not be read literally, rather so long as the flavor of the dish is negatively impacted by this isur (it is permitted). And there is proof of the matter from the case of day-old pots which are called "noten ta'am lifgam," and certainly they aren't so disgusting that they make a dish inedible...

And even though we learn out the principle of noten ta'am lifgam from the example of neveilah (an improperly slaughtered carcass) and the fact that only neveilah which is edible for a non-Jew is called neveilah (and therefore it would seem that for something to be ta'am lifgam it must render things inedible), there this is the standard to permit eating the neveilah itself, and therefore it's forbidden until it's rendered so disgusting as to be inedible, but a prohibited substance in a mixture, where we go by the giving of flavor, once it's imparted a negative flavor in a mixture, it's permitted, since it doesn't "give flavor" but rather damages.

ָAnd this (that ta'am lifgam applies even when it only damages the taste without making the food inedible) applies specifically when a small amount of prohibited substance was mixed with a large amount of permitted food, but a large amount of the prohibited substance into a small amount of permitted food, or even half/half, it makes sense that in these cases we don't say ta'am lifgam is permitted unless the prohibited substance is completely inedible.