Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses the idea that two different prohibitions might alternately join with a permitted substance to nullify a different forbidden substance. In other words, two different prohibited substances can each join with the majority of permitted material to nullify the other.

The Rosh (Shu”t klal 20, article 2) says that even though our Gemara was discussing halachos that pertain to sacrifices, there is a modern-day application of these principles:

59 k’zeysim of permitted substance, then one kzayis of blood and one kzayis of forbidden fat get mixed together. On the one hand, we do not have 60 times the permitted substance to nullify the prohibited. On the other hand, we have 60 times of non-blood (59 permitted substance plus one forbidden fat) to nullify the blood. Similarly, we have 60 times of “other substance” (59 permitted substance plus one part blood) to nullify the forbidden fat. (There is another case similar to this one, and both are brought down and ruled as permitted by Shulchan Aruch, YD 98:9.)

As I often remark, we see how patterns in nature, psychology, physiology, and spirituality seem to repeat themselves and correspond with each other. The idea that something can be toxic but nevertheless contribute to reducing the toxicity of another element plays itself out in many arenas.

On a physiological level, we easily understand that 1 ounce of a particular toxin mixed with another ounce of a different toxin is not the equivalent of having 2 ounces of the same toxin. The load of toxicity is mitigated because each kind of toxicity is different and the body can tolerate small amounts of each.

This is also true when it comes to personality. All of us have flaws. In a good relationship, each party learns how to bear and work with the other person’s flaws. As long as the flaws are not overwhelming — even if there are numerous ones — it is not the same as having one toxic level of one particular flaw. That is why differentness in a relationship can actually be an advantage. If two people were the same in many respects, but also shared the same flaws, there could be an overwhelming shortcoming and problem that would threaten stability far more than an aggregate of several different flaws.

For example, imagine both parties were rigid — or the opposite, both parties were undisciplined. No one would keep the other in check, and it could reach an extreme without resolution. On the other hand, if they are different, but able to have respectful dialogue, they can keep each other in check and balance out their flaws.

In essence, this is what is being reflected by this halachic principle. Instead of labeling something as unkosher without nuance — saying, “Well, now we have two parts unkosher and 59 parts kosher, so we do not have enough to nullify” — we take a more holistic approach. We understand that one kind of unkosher is not the same as another kind of unkosher, and therefore the overall presence of permitted substance — and even forbidden substance of a different kind — is able to nullify that particular toxic agent within one type of unkosher part.