Here is the rule that when everything is in the water there is a nullification in the six, therefore in our case the six against the spoon is enough, and the spoon did not prohibit the other vessels.
However, the rule is that wherever a piece is void at sixty, the piece itself is prohibited, therefore if the spoon was a day old, then it is obligated to dishonor it, but since it is not a day old, it is not obligated to dishonor it, but to begin with, the meat spoon must be dishonored after 44 hours have passed The fall (because within 24 hours of the prohibition made by cooking or boiling does not benefit the abomination).
In retrospect, if they did not disgust this spoon (in the case that it was not a day old and was not required to be disgusted by the law), if they returned and used it for meat within 24 hours (in the case that it was not soaked in water together with the meat spoon against the dairy spoons), everything is forbidden, and if they used it for dairy In hindsight it was not banned.
27 is explained in Yod 3, 36, 33 and 34 and No. 2 there (except that there it is about a matter that is boiling and about a matter in which there was a stew inside the vessel, and I. nearby).
And it is further explained in Shekh C. Zeg Skag Shemen Hadin that it was permissible to cook in this spoon between meat and milk, but it is customary to make it strict not to cook anything in it until the spoon is prepared according to Shchak Rama C. Side S.
(And Mm do not say here that you will eat a man for a matter that we consider everything to be chilled, because you will eat a man only for a matter that does not prohibit everything, but is not useful so that they do not need any training, dishing it up with boiling food that has fallen into chilled food from shelled meat, as explained in the rulings C. Zeg .
And apart from this, there are opinions among the arbitrators that they do not say at all that a woman will die, but that she will never be swallowed by Ham and Nasr, as in the Marsh'al Yesh Sh Chulin P.H. Sis and Ei' Sh.S. C. Ka SKI, and the first ones differed on this G.C. And there are some of the first who are of the opinion to be stricter like the opinion of the Maharashal, see what he brought to this in the Shu'at of the Maharasham HH C. No.
And on the other hand, for the methods that consider that even with a vessel they say teath a man, for the matter under discussion if they say that it is all over when they say tha a man to forbid everything in such a way that there is a fat word in the Shoah C. Ka 37 that means no, and I. "4 HA C. Ked letter 1. There is a dispute about this, but for our purposes, they said that the prohibition is the taste of the dish. It is more severe if the dish forbids a dish with a sauce or a dish that prohibits a dish without sauce when it has an oily taste, p. ק C. ק ק קא שקחק על סעז זים there).
And with regard to the issue of whether a vessel can prohibit a vessel or not, everything that is discussed is about dry vessels, but in the way that there is water with the vessel, a vessel is prohibited. "B.
And in fact, we need to review this further, because in some matters related to this, we have to settle on the details of the methods in this, such as the law of a pulsing vessel, and the law of a man's body in a vessel, and the law of a second vessel that boils, a hand that dislikes itself, and more.
מק"ט התשובה הוא: 5733