Sources and reasoning:
Based on the Shulchan Aruch (siman 552, se’ifim 3–4) and the Biur Halachah (s.v. “she-notnin”), and likewise explained in Kaf HaChayim (ibid., se’if katan 20).
Regarding the consumption of salads and spreads, I will reproduce what I wrote, with humility, in She’elot u-Teshuvot Torat Meir, vol. I (siman 106):
Eating Cooked Salads and Spreads at the Seudah HaMafseket
Question: Is it permitted to eat at the seudah hamafseket on the eve of Tisha B’Av several types of cooked spreads and salads that are subordinate to bread, such as hummus salad, eggplant, jam, and the like?
Answer: Any cooked salad that is not eaten on its own as is, but only by virtue of its subordinate role to bread, may be eaten, even if there are several varieties. This is not considered included in the prohibition of two cooked dishes. Therefore, at the seudah hamafseket one may eat several types of salads intended for spreading along with bread and a cooked dish. Likewise, one may eat an egg with cheese and butter. Nevertheless, it is proper to minimize pleasure at this meal.
1). Tosafot wrote (Ta’anit 30a, s.v. “erev”): On the eve of Tisha B’Av, one may not eat two cooked dishes, meaning, from two pots—for example, what people call “we ate two kinds,” called mishvin. However, one should not prohibit eating a dish made from onions, cheese, and eggs. For although onions are not ordinarily eaten raw, etc., nevertheless, since one does not make a dish from them alone without adding fat or something else that gives flavor, it is not called a cooked dish so as to prohibit the eggs. End quote. It emerges from their words that the definition of two cooked dishes is that which people call two cooked dishes; something not eaten as is but only as subordinate to the primary food is not regarded as a cooked dish. Accordingly, the same applies in our case: since these spreads are never eaten as they are on their own, but only as subordinate to bread or food, they are therefore considered part of the food. So too wrote the great Rishonim, including the Ramban (ibid.), Ra’ah (ibid.), Ritva (ibid.), Meiri (ibid.), and Orchot Chayim (Hilchot Tisha B’Av, siman 6), explaining that this is unlike eruv, for here the concern is pleasure and significance. Maran, the Shulchan Aruch, likewise ruled this way (siman 552, se’if 3), stating that one should be stringent and avoid two types in one pot unless it is something customarily prepared this way throughout the year, such as peas upon which onions and eggs are placed. In se’if 4 he wrote: It is customary to eat lentils with eggs cooked in them. Although our case is somewhat more stringent, since at the time of cooking they were two separate cooked dishes, nevertheless, because these spreads are not eaten independently but are meant to accompany bread, they are considered as though cooked together.
2). This is also implied by what the Magen Avraham wrote (se’if katan 4): the reason it is forbidden to fry fish with eggs is that they are generally cooked without eggs. This implies that where something is never eaten as a primary food, it is not considered a cooked dish. So wrote as well the Eliyah Rabbah (ot 3) and the Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 10). It is also explicit in Machatzit HaShekel (se’if katan 6), who wrote that the Magen Avraham’s ruling that it is forbidden to eat cooked pancakes with cheese refers to a case where the dough is food in its own right, since the dough is generally eaten without the cheese filling, “and the cheese too is food in its own right.” (It appears that the food called “blintzes” in our times is permitted, since this is its customary preparation; the Shulchan Gavoha likewise wrote so, cited in Kaf HaChayim, se’if katan 24.) This implies that if it is not customary to eat the food independently, but only together with the primary food, it is nullified to it and considered part of it.
3). See further the Biur Halachah (s.v. “she-notnin”), who wrote that what was permitted regarding eating two cooked foods together applies specifically where they come to flavor and improve the primary food and are subordinate to it. But if two types were cooked together in one pot, it may be forbidden. Kaf HaChayim (ibid., se’if katan 20) likewise ruled stringently in this regard. It is also clear from their words that anything eaten only as subordinate to the primary food is considered one food. Although each food may be eaten independently, such as peas and eggs, nevertheless, because it was generally customary in their time to cook peas together with onion and egg in order to enhance their taste, they are considered subordinate and one cooked dish. Accordingly, this is certainly so in our case, where these spreads are never eaten as they are independently but only as subordinate to food or bread. It may therefore be said that they lack the status of a “cooked dish” for this meal.
4). This is also logical, for otherwise it would be forbidden to eat food with sugar or salt on it, since they are cooked in our times. Rather, because people do not eat sugar and salt alone, and their primary purpose is to enhance flavor, they are subordinate to the food. I likewise found this stated explicitly in Eshel Avraham—Butshatsh (siman 552, se’if 1): it is permitted to season bread and foods with salt and sugar, even if cooked, and to eat them at the seudah hamafseket, and they are not considered two cooked dishes, since they are not eaten independently. (What Machzik Berachah wrote, siman 552, se’if katan 2, forbidding drinking water with cinnamon and coriander seed together with sugar because it is pleasurable and the practice of the wealthy—and this is cited in Sha’arei Teshuvah, siman 552—concerns pleasure, for one should not indulge at this meal, rather than the law of cooked dishes. This is straightforward.) However, I found that She’elot u-Teshuvot Zivchei Tzedek, vol. II (siman 32), left unresolved whether date honey made through heating over fire is considered a cooked dish for the seudah hamafseket. His disciple, Rabbeinu Ben Ish Chai zatzukal (Parashat Devarim, ot 19), forbade eating cooked date honey, called silan. Seemingly, according to the above, it should be permitted. However, it may be that it was prepared as a beverage and drunk independently, and was therefore considered a cooked dish; this is also implied by the Ben Ish Chai’s words. See there.
5). It likewise appears obvious that spreads are not considered a cooked dish, from the fact that they permitted eating bread with a cooked dish at this meal, and this is the common practice. (This is also explained in Chayei Adam, klal 134, se’if 6, that bread is considered one cooked dish; see also Sha’ar HaTziyun, siman 552, se’if katan 18.) Why should the bread itself not be considered one cooked dish? Just as there is no distinction between roasting and cooking, as the Mordechai wrote and is cited by the Rema (siman 552, se’if 3), so too there should be no distinction between baking and cooking. Rather, since the cooked dish is subordinate to the bread and becomes part of it, and is commonly termed one cooked dish, it is permitted. The same applies in our case. See also Eshel Avraham—Butshatsh (siman 552, ibid.).
Although She’elot u-Teshuvot Or LeTzion, vol. III (chapter 28, ot 1, in the explanations), adopted a stringent view in this matter, the primary ruling in my humble opinion is to be lenient regarding these foods for the reason explained. I subsequently saw that this was also the view of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, cited in the work Ashrei HaIsh (Mo’adim, vol. III, chapter 70), and the view of Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, cited in the Mishnah Berurah, Dirshu edition (siman 552, note 22), that a cooked spread on bread is not considered a cooked dish for the seudah hamafseket.
6). It also appears that it is permitted to eat an egg with bread, cheese—namely soft cheese intended for spreading—and butter. Although cheese is pasteurized and reaches the temperature of yad soledet bo, nevertheless, according to the above, it is permitted even if we say that pasteurization is deemed cooking for this matter. This is because butter and soft cheese in our times are primarily eaten to accompany bread. Although the Ben Ish Chai (ibid.) wrote that if cheese was cooked it has the status of a cooked dish and may not be eaten with another cooked dish, he was referring to a case where the cheese was eaten on its own, and it was therefore considered a cooked dish.
7). Nevertheless, although all this is permitted according to the basic law, it is proper to minimize one’s pleasures at this meal, as Machzik Berachah wrote (siman 552, se’if katan 2) concerning eating “salata” with a cooked dish at this meal; the Ben Ish Chai (ibid.) likewise wrote so.
8). By way of further discussion, it appears to me that one who sends mishloach manot on Purim containing items that are not eaten independently at all, but only serve to accompany bread—such as hummus salad, tahini, various spreads, and the like; likewise coffee powder and spices—has not fulfilled the obligation of mishloach manot, for in such a case it is not considered a portion. What is stated in the Gemara, Megillah (7b), that they sent ginger and peppers, refers to moist ones fit to be eaten independently; see Shulchan Aruch (siman 202, se’if 16). This is also the view of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zatzukal, cited in Dirshu (siman 695, note 43). See further the Chida in his work Petach Einayim (Beitzah 15b), and Aruch HaShulchan (siman 695, se’if 17). See also Chazon Ovadia—Purim (p. 127). This is not the place to elaborate.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
