By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times

It is pretty gross, of course, but the right thing to do is to always look at what happens in the world from the viewpoint of halacha. In this situation, we will explore three areas of Jewish law, the laws of bitul b’shishim, the laws of marinating, and the laws of koshering. But first, we must examine the facts.

It happened in Farmington, Utah. Last Wednesday night, at a Mormon church, some women and youth were preparing a meal for older members of the Mormon congregation. One of the women, Troy Walker, was taking green beans out of a slow cooker (what we call a cholent pot), when she spotted a snake head inside the pot.

“It looked pretty much like a burnt bean, and then as I got closer to lift it off the spoon, I saw eyes,” Walker said. “That’s when I just dropped it and screamed.”

Christi Smith also was cooking that evening and told The Associated Press it was a very small snake that had clearly been cut up. After the kids all came to see it, they threw out several other large pots of string beans that were also cooking before looking inside.

Walker took a picture of the snake head to send to Western Family, an Oregon-based food distribution company whose label was on the can. To the relief of many of our readers, it should be known that the can of green beans did not have a hechsher. The picture appears at the top of this article.

What was the company’s reaction? Sharon McFadden, vice president of quality control for Western Family, announced that the company takes the matter seriously and is working with the supplier that produced the green beans to find out what happened and how many cans came from the batch. In other words, “Where did the rest of that snake go?”

But onto matters that concern us – the halacha. May the rest of the green beans in the cholent pot be eaten, after the snake head has been removed? What about the pot?

IS THERE BITUL?

At first, one might think that the green beans are permitted because of the concept of “Batel B’Shishim – it is nullified in a mixture of sixty to one.” The slow cooker probably had 60 times the volume of other food to the volume of the snake head after the snake head had been removed.

In a nutshell, we assume that the entire taste of the snake head had entered into the slow cooker. But, if we remove the snake head we would still have well over sixty times the volume of permitted food to forbidden food.

There is a debate (YD 98:1) between the Ramah and the author of the Shulchan Aruch, Rav Yoseph Karo, as to how we can tell if taste is nullified. Rav Karo holds that we may ask an expert chef to taste it. The Ramah holds that we can no longer rely on this and we must measure whether we have a ratio of sixty to one or not.

Where did the figure of sixty to one come from?

This is actually a debate between Rashi and Tosfos in the Talmud (Chullin 98a). Tosfos explains that the Rabbis had a tradition to this effect and that the Gemorah’s derivation through the psukim is merely an allusion backing up the tradition that the Rabbis had received. Rashi learns that the Gemorah’s derivation through psukim is no mere allusion, but a full and accurate derivation. The derivation is as follows:

A Nazir must bring and eat of a special offering (see BaMidbar 6:19). The offering is a ram. The ram is cooked together with the forearm. This forearm is called the Zroah b’shaila.

But wait. We have a problem. The forearm is forbidden to the Nazir because it must be gifted to the Kohain. How then may the Nazir eat of it? The taste of the forearm is certainly imparted into the rest of the ram! The Gemorah explains that it is a ratio of sixty to one. This ratio would nullify any taste from the forearm to the rest of the ram.

OTHER ISSUE

But then there is the concept of Kavush – or marinating. Clearly, the snake head was in the can of green beans for at least 24 hours prior to the can being placed in the slow cooker.

The Shulchan Aruch (YD 105:1) clearly states that prohibited food that was immersed with permitted food for 24 hours is considered as if it was cooked together and forbidden. This is called, “Kavush.” It is based on a statement of Shmuel in the Talmud. It should be noted that the laws of Kavush apply after 24 hours to anything immersed in water. However, if the mixture is briny, such as a salty mixture, the laws of Kavush apply after only 18 minutes.

Thus, we can assume that the entire can of green beans that was placed into the slow-cooker was prohibited, even though there were several other cans of beans in that slow-cooker. Even if we were to fish out the snakehead, the mixture would still be forbidden since we would not have sixty times the amount of permitted green beans to the forbidden can.

What about the slow-cooker? Must it be koshered? Can it be koshered?

If there is no sixty to one ratio, then the pot indeed may not be used until it is koshered, as we assume that it has absorbed the taste of the non-kosher. But not all pots can be koshered. If the pot was made out of porcelain then the only way to kasher the pot is to put it back in the kiln, which would most assuredly break the pot. If the pot was made out of metal, then it may be koshered.

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE OF THERE WAS A 60:1 RATIO, BUT THE SNAKE HEAD CANNOT BE REMOVED?

There are some things that are never batel or nullified – even if there is a sixty to one ratio. Indeed, there are ten various items which do not get nullified:

1. One such thing is the idea of nikar – if the piece that got lost in the pot is still identifiable. The snake head is identifiable, and thus is not batel. There are a number of other things that are not considered nullified – in the language of our sages, “Afilu b’elef lo batil – even in a thousand it does not become batel.”

2. Beryah – a complete creature whether it is alive or dead (See YD 100:1).

3. Baal Chai – a creature that is still alive even if it is not whole or complete.

4. Davar sh’yaish lo matirin – something that will eventually become permitted in and of itself. An example of this is maaseh Shabbos – if something was cooked or became created over Shabbos it does not become batel because it will eventually become permitted anyway. If an egg was laid on Shabbos or Yom Tov and it became mixed in one thousand other eggs – none of the eggs may be eaten because eventually that one egg will become permitted anyhow.

5. Chaticha Har’uyah l’hiskabaid – a piece that is worthy to serve an important guest.

6. Davar Chashuv – an important item. Rav Karo lists seven specific items but the Ramah writes that it is anything that is sold by the unit as opposed to by weight.

7. Kavuah – if the item is in a set place and one forgot where the forbidden one was and where the permitted one was. The items, however, are not actually mixed together.

8. Chazusa – if it was done to create a color or appearance. (See Shach YD 102:5, for those who limit it or disagree see MB 513:9).

9. Avida l’T’imah – If the item was put in to create a detectable flavor or as a flavoring agent (see Ramah 98:8 Taz 98:11).

10. Ikro Kach – If the item is normally done in that manner then bitul does not apply according to the Rashba. The Noda BiYehuda, however permits it. The custom is to follow the Rashba (See Bais Yoseph YD 134 and Mogain Avrohom OC 446) when we have a kosher infrastructure in place, but when we are new to an area, we follow the lenient view of the Noda BiYehudah (MT #56) (Melamed L’ho’il Vol. II #29).

This last issue is quite fascinating. Many readers may recall that their grandparents or great grandparents told them that they used to eat candy bars without a hechsher – just by looking at the ingredients. But how could this be? Granted that manufacturing technology back them was not as sophisticated as it is now, but still – what about the concern of treif ingredients? The answer is that we used to rely on the Noda BiYehudah that even if it was normally added it is still kosher. Nowadays, however, we no longer rely on this view because we consider the United States as an area where we have an infrastructure.

Few people rely on this view now in the United States.

This may not be the case regarding whiskeys. Some, if not most people, continue to rely only on the ingredients when it comes to whiskeys and do not care to only purchase with a reliable supervision. This is because they feel that we still do not have an infrastructure when it comes to alcohol. Others disagree with this leniency and require only whiskeys that are completely free of halachic problems.

The author may be reached at [email protected].

The author’s books are available on amazon.com.