All right, rabotai (gentlemen). Let’s go from the beginning of the story. We already learned the Gemara the other day: Tana devei Rabbi Yishmael (It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael): lo tevashel (Do not cook), lo tevashel, lo tevashel. One is le'isur achilah (for the prohibition of eating), one is le'isur bishul (for the prohibition of cooking), and one is le'isur hana'ah (for the prohibition of benefit). The obvious question is: Why did the Torah write it bilshon (in the wording of) bishul? The Gemara says it is to teach you the principle of derech bishul: that only when the basar bechalav (meat and milk) is mevushal (cooked) is it asur min haTorah (prohibited by Torah law). If it is not mevushal, there is no isur min haTorah (Torah-level prohibition). That is why the Torah went out of its way to say lo tevashel, to teach the principle of derech bishul. But if it is not derech bishul, it will not be asur min haTorah.
I was running around with the guys here at the beginning, so I’ll review that for the guys who didn’t hear it. The question you have here is when you read, let’s say, the Tur. You have your Turim, and now we can read it together. Open the Tur at the beginning of peh-zayin. Isur basar bechalav: ketiv (it is written), one in Shemot, kaf-gimel; one in Shemot, lamed-dalet; and one in Devarim, yud-dalet: lo tevashel gedi bachalev imo. Vene'emar shalosh pe'amim baTorah (and it is said three times in the Torah): achat le'isur bishul, achat le'isur achilah, ve'achat le'isur hana'ah; vehotzi isur achilah bilshon bishul, lomar (to say) she'eino asur min haTorah ela derech bishul.
So I ask: If I were writing the Tur, or writing the Shulchan Aruch—because, by the way, we open the Shulchan Aruch; it goes straight to Shulchan Aruch—rabotai, peh-zayin, alef: “Katuv baTorah: lo tevashel gedi bachalev imo shalosh pe'amim. Achat le'isur bishul, achat le'isur achilah, ve'achat le'isur hana'ah; vehotzi achilah bilshon bishul lomar she'eino asur min haTorah ela derech bishul.” I would not have used the word derech. I would have said: einah asurah min haTorah ela bebishul. Why derech? What do you mean, derech bishul? Is there a difference between bishul and derech bishul? Bebishul! Every word of the Shulchan Aruch is measured; every word of the Tur is measured. It should just say, “einah asurah min haTorah ela bebishul.” What is this word derech? Do you hear my question?
Rabotai, is it my question? No, it’s not my question. Whose question is it? The Shach, Rav Shach. What does the Shach say? Look at the Shach, se'if katan (small subsection) alef, the first Shach: “she'einah she'eino asur min haTorah ela derech bishul.” What is the first word of the Shach? Kelomar—that means there’s a problem here. Stop right there. Anytime you see a kelomar, that means there’s a problem here. I don’t need to paraphrase if the phrase was clear. Paraphrase means, “He means to say.” What do you mean, “He means to say”? He said it; it’s befirush (explicitly). When you have to say what he means to say, that means what he said is not clear. So you need someone to come and unravel it. That’s what kelomar does.
You learned that already, yes, boys? When you read this Shach, whoever got up to this first Shach and saw this kelomar had to stop right away. So what did I miss? What did I miss that the Shach had to wake me up and say, “You fool, you read the Shulchan Aruch and you didn’t see the— you didn’t see the blatant problem?” The blatant problem the Shach is coming to address is: Why derech? So kelomar means: Why did the Shulchan Aruch have to say derech bishul? Just say einah asurah ela bebishul. Yes, so far?
He answers that it’s true: the Torah did not only oser (prohibit) bishul; the Torah also oser anything that’s derech bishul. Bishul is this wide; derech bishul already includes other things. For example, maybe roasting is derech bishul; it’s fire. Maybe smoking—that’s also fire. Frying! Oh, tigun (frying), ishun (smoking). That’s not bishul? It’s not bishul; bishul is al yedei mayim (through water). But it could be that it’s a derech bishul, meaning derech bishul kitzat (somewhat), al yedei esh (through fire). Efshar (possibly)! How do we know it’s derech bishul? Maybe it’s only bishul? Ah, that I don’t know. No, the Gemara says that! The Torah says that? The Gemara says derech bishul; I didn’t say it. You’re right, I don’t know that on my own. On my own, I would say bebishul. What’s the lashon (wording) of the Gemara? “Lo asrah Torah ela derech bishul.” So from that—and everybody is quoting it—all the Acharonim (later authorities), when they saw that word derech bishul, did not say it’s lav davka (not necessarily). That’s the key word.
So the Shach says: What does derech bishul come to lema'et (to exclude)? Things that are clearly not bishul and not derech bishul. Boys, what are the two items that are not bishul and not derech bishul? What are the two items? Bedyuk (exactly): melichah (salting) and kevishah (soaking). Take two items: I take a piece of gevinah (cheese) and a piece of basar, and I salt them together. Now, don’t kid yourself. The Gemara says, “maliach harei hu kerote'ach” (A salted item is like a hot item). Maliach has the ability to cook and combine in a certain way, but nobody is going to tell me that maliach is derech bishul. There’s no fire, there’s no water, nothing, although it might create the same result. It’s me'arbev te'amim. Yeah? So melichah is a classic case that’s not bishul and not derech bishul. Therefore, it’s asur miderabbanan (prohibited by rabbinic law). Derech bishul is asur min haTorah; ein derech bishul is asur miderabbanan.
What’s the second case the Shach says? Kavush (soaked or pickled). Mah zeh kavush? I take a piece—same story—I take a piece of cheese and a piece of meat and drop them in water, mayim. “I stop like, I cap it.” You don’t have to cap it. I’m not making pickles. I cap it for 24 hours. That’s called kavush. Once I pickled it, that’s called pickling, kavush; I soaked it in water for 24 hours. Is that derech bishul? No, dropping something in cold water is derech bishul? If somebody saw me dropping a piece of cheese and a piece of meat into cold water, they would say, “Oh, how long is it cooking there for?” Cook? Who’s cooking? Nobody knows cooking here. I’m not cooking it; I dropped it in cold water. You can’t call that derech bishul. But does it have the same consequence as bishul? Yeah. For 24 hours, the te'amim (flavors) are me'arbev. Kavush will be asur miderabbanan.
Now you understand the kelomar? Zeh lo ani (This isn’t me), rabotai. Ta'ayen be'Imrei Binah, which you saw. I’m just pointing it out: on the right side, that’s the Imrei Binah. Again, peh-zayin in Shulchan Aruch. I don’t know what system you have here. Oh, you have your own system here. Oh, yeah, you have your own book here. I don’t know what that is. Imrei Binah, in our system, is right over here on the right side. Ayen Shach (see the Shach). That’s how we explain the Shach. You saw? You took it and put a note on that.
I mean, that’s key just to understand the kelomar. But, rabotai, learn that as a lesson. I’m giving you the tools to learn not only in the Shach. The same rules apply in Rashi. Every time you see a kelomar in Rashi, you can’t go further until you figure out the inherent problem. That’s how we medayek (read precisely) properly. You can’t skip a kelomar. All right, kelomar, in yeshivah, kelomar, we keep going because you want to get to the answer. The main thing in Rashi is not the answer. The main thing of a kelomar in Rashi is: What was bothering you? If you used to learn the Gemara like that, when you got to that Shach and saw the kelomar, right away you would have said, “That’s a stop sign. Rabotai, there’s a big problem here: kelomar.” It’s always like that. That’s the first lesson you learned today.
Nafka mina (practical difference), boys. Now I came to give you nafka minot. You tell me: What’s the difference? What do I care if basar bechalav is asur mide'Oraita or asur miderabbanan? Bottom line, I can’t eat it anyway. I’m living bazman hazeh (in our time). What do I care if I was over mide'Oraita or miderabbanan? It’s asur. Nafka mina number one is safek (uncertainty). What does safek mean? I have a piece of cheese. I know it fell into the water with the meat, but I’m mesupak (uncertain) if it was there for 24 hours. I don’t know how long it was in there. Then they took it out. I ask them, “How long was the cheese in there?” Could it have been a day? Could have been. Could it have been less? Could have been. Not sure. The shiur (measure) is 24 hours? Yes. Let’s say, so you’re going to see different shiurim. Is it 12 hours? Is it overnight? Let’s say we’ll go with 24 hours. What’s the din (law) of that cheese, based on the rule of safek derabbanan lekula (rabbinic doubt is lenient)? That’s it.
The same thing with melichah. There’s going to be a shiur of melichah. Let’s say it’s 18 minutes, whatever the shiur is, how long it takes for flavors to commingle. I have a safek if it was the shiur of melichah: safek derabbanan lekula. Whereas if I have that same safek with derech bishul, it’s safek de'oraita lechumra (Torah doubt is stringent). I cannot get out of it. So there’s a nafka mina bazman hazeh between knowing whether this basar bechalav is derabbanan or de'oraita, le'inyan sefekot (regarding doubts).
If you work for a kashrut (agency) agency, they’re going to rely on these sefekot a lot. You know, in factories and things like that, when they always need to pull out sefekot to matir (permit) millions of cans of something, they have to know this: derabbanan, de'oraita, to work with sefekot. Good. Okay, now we go to another nafka mina, which is the nafka mina we came to talk about.
If you read the Rama in two places, we’ll make the easy Rama first, by us, by peh-zayin, right after the first Shulchan Aruch. Peh-zayin, the first Rama: What does he say? He gives you a kelal (principle): “Kol basar bechalav she'eino asur min haTorah mutar bahana'ah” (Any meat and milk not prohibited by Torah law is permitted for benefit). Baruch shemo! Unbelievable kelal! Where he got it from, I don’t know, but I accept the Rama. “Kol Benei Yisrael yotzim beyad Rama” (All the people of Israel follow the ruling of the Rama). The Rama says that any basar bechalav that’s asur miderabbanan is mutar bahana'ah. So I can’t eat it, but I could be neheneh (benefit from it).
Back to my story. Again, I want to make it crystal clear. I have basar bechalav; I salted it together. Can I eat it? No. Can I feed it to my dog? Yes. Ah, you’re being neheneh? Come on, be neheneh; you can sell it to a goy (non-Jew), too. By the way, that’s the Rambam’s shitah (approach) as well, as you saw. The Rambam is in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, perek (chapter) tet, halachah (law) dalet. The Rambam is not talking here about melichah, and he’s not talking about kevishah. The Rambam made an unbelievable case: bishul! It should be a question: How could you have mamash (actual) bishul that is derabbanan? No, bishalti kederech (I cooked it in the usual manner). Huh? Ah, of (fowl)! Very good. Which means that, according to the Rambam, of is derabbanan as well. So now we’re talking about the product. Until now, we talked about the method of cooking; we never talked about the product. But the Rambam holds that besar of (fowl meat), no matter what you do to it, is derabbanan. “Lachen bishalti of im chalav” (Therefore, I cooked fowl with milk). According to the Rambam, the product of that bishul is a derabbanan issur. Therefore, if I eat besar of bechalav, avarti issur derabbanan.
Listen to the language of the Rambam; I’m quoting: “Vechen besar chayah va'of bein bechalav behemah eino asur min haTorah, lefichach mutar levashelo...” That’s, by the way, just a question. My son asked that question: Is it mutar levashelo? No. Ah, you told me it’s asur. Ah, not bishul? And it’s asur miderabbanan? Ah, that’s what you’re telling me: it’s asur for me to salt cheese and meat, to put them together? Miderabbanan, asur? Miderabbanan, asur?
I want to know, rabotai: Can I take gevinah and basar and put them together? Can I do this? I want to take basar, basar mamash, and put it together b'melichah. Mutar or asur? I’m not eating it; I just want to do this act. Asur miderabbanan? Ah, for sure. Ah, for sure? For sure? What, did you make a shevu'ah (oath), or do you have a makor (source) for that? Oh, wait, the Rama over here says mutar bahana'ah. Ah, mutar bahana'ah! Mashma bishul... Mashma bishul? Asur... I just read you the Rambam, but—Okay, so we have a question in the Rambam. I don’t know. Ay, here’s the question: Maybe the question is on the Rama! The Rambam says here, “aval basar chayah va'of bechalav eino asur ba'achilah min haTorah, lefichach mutar levashelo umutar bahana'ah.” For my purposes, I need the mutar bahana'ah. The Rambam clearly says that basar of bechalav, even if you cooked it, is mutar bahana'ah. How could you agree with the Rama?
Yes, and that’s what the Shach in bet says, if you saw: one of the sources that says mutar bahana'ah is the Rambam. That’s the Rambam we just read. He actually says it’s in the Sefer HaChinuch also. He quotes the Ra'ah, Rabbi Aharon HaLevi, from Sefer HaChinuch; that’s the Ra'ah. He also quotes a Mordechai. That’s the subject of the shiur today: the Mordechai quoted by the Shach.
Now, how do we know this Mordechai? We know it from the Darkei Moshe. Go back to the Tur. If you look at the Darkei Moshe—go back to the Tur, boys; we’ll learn it together. Go back to the Darkei Moshe in peh-zayin. Read the first Darkei Moshe together. He says, “uMordechai” (And the Mordechai). You see it, boys? Darkei Moshe. Boys, do you have it there, Darkei Moshe? In peh-zayin, Darkei Moshe: “uMordechai, perek Ein Ma'amidin, yesh lehochi'ach (one can prove) de'im ne'esar basar bechalav al yedei melichah o al yedei kavush, dedavka ba'achilah asur velo bahana'ah” (If meat and milk became prohibited through salting or soaking, it is prohibited specifically for eating, but not for benefit). “Veyesh dochin.” Some don’t like the proof. “Hilkach, hamatir bahana'ah ein mochin beyado” (Therefore, one who permits benefit is not opposed), “kol kamma delo ashkachan re'ayah le'isur” (so long as we have found no proof of prohibition).
So there’s an amazing Mordechai. The Mordechai says, “I have a re'ayah (proof) from an explicit Gemara in Avodah Zarah.” I’ll tell you the Gemara now. The Mordechai says, “I’m confident that this is a re'ayah to matir hana'ah with melichah and kavush. Although some want to push my re'ayah away, no problem. But until they can bring a re'ayah to oser, ein mochin. You can’t go against people who want to have hana'ah.” What’s the re'ayah of the Mordechai?
The Gemara there in Avodah Zarah, lamed-heh, lamed-dalet, is talking about gevinot akum. Mah zeh gevinot akum? The cheese that is made by the goyim. The Gemara asks: Why should gevinot akum be asur? After all, what is it? It’s milk. You can’t make cheese without cow’s milk, so it has to be cow’s milk. If it’s cow’s milk, maybe it’s not chalav Yisrael, but—you can’t mix even with other milks to make cheese. So what could be wrong with gevinot akum? That’s the Gemara’s question.
The Gemara gives three reasons. Rabotai, do you know the three reasons why there’s a problem with gevinot akum? Reason number one: Shemuel. Shemuel says, “shema'amidin oto be'or kevat neveilah” (They set it using the hide of the stomach of a carcass). They take the keivah—which is the stomach—of a neveilah (animal carcass), take the meat of it, and stick it in the milk. What does it do? It makes the milk congeal into cheese. I’m not an expert in biology here, but something in the or kevat neveilah creates the cheese. It only works with cow’s milk, though. Yes, yes: cow’s milk with the or kevat neveilah, voilà! Or kevat neveilah with bedyuk—abracadabra, you have cheese. So the Gemara says, “Aha, or kevat neveilah! Therefore you can’t have the goyim’s cheese, because they may have put this neveilah in there.” That’s the first answer.
Second answer: No, no, no. Rav Chisda—od nechmad—more good. “Lo, shema'amidin oto bechometz.” What’s chometz? Vinegar. “Shema'amido bechometz.” You know what chometz is? Rashi says yayin nesech (wine used for idolatry). Aha, the chometz is yayin nesech. Again, I’m not a biologist, but they put yayin nesech in the milk, and all of a sudden, abracadabra, you have cheese. Yayin nesech is asur even if it turns into vinegar? No, that’s what chometz means. No, I’m saying I don’t know if it’s called yayin nesech, but I know that when it says chometz, it means yayin nesech. Clearly it’s tart; that’s what curds—
Third answer: “mipnei shema'amidim oto besaraf shel orlah” (Because they set it with sap from orlah). You have a tree that’s orlah (the first three years); are you with me? They take the sap of orlah and they ma'amid. Those are the three reasons why you can’t.
Now, those are three reasons. So the Gemara says, note, note. This is Avodah Zarah, lamed-heh, amud bet. Ah, rabotai, you should know that according to the second—when we read the last two reasons—not only should it be asur to eat gevinot akum, it should be asur behana'ah. Why? Because you’re not allowed to have hana'ah from yayin nesech, and you’re not allowed to have hana'ah from orlah. You should know: it should be asur even to have hana'ah. The Gemara says, “Good kushya”—good question—and leaves it in abeyance.
Then comes Chacham Mordechai. Chacham Mordechai says, “Hold it. How come it only asked the she'eilah (question) of isur hana'ah for the last two reasons? The first reason, lich'orah (seemingly), is basar bechalav.” Kanireh (apparently), the Mordechai understood that when the Gemara says neveilah, it’s lav davka. It’s not specifically a neveilah; it means basar. So what are you doing? You’re taking basar and putting it into this milk; you’re not cooking it. Kanireh, it’s kavush. The Gemara doesn’t say, “Oh, it should be asur behana'ah.” So you see, the Mordechai says, a re'ayah from the Gemara that basar bechalav shenichbash (meat and milk that were soaked together) is mutar behana'ah, because the Gemara did not ask the isur hana'ah question according to the first ukimta (interpretation).
What about the chometz? Does the Gemara ask about the chometz? Yeah, the Gemara says that for the second two answers—yayin nesech and orlah—it asks about hana'ah. So the Mordechai says that the fact they didn’t ask about the first one shows that it’s mutar. But then he says, “Veyesh dochin.” He says, “Listen, I want to be honest: veyesh dochin.” I want to know who the yesh dochin are today. That’s what we want to know. Who’s rejecting it? We’ll talk about it. It sounds like a nice re'ayah. Is there a difference with basar teme'ah? I don’t know, basar teme'ah. What is it, like a pig? Yeah, is there a difference between derech bishul, if it’s not derech bishul, and basar teme'ah? Oh boy, that’s bet; you’ll see bet. We’ll get into teme'ah later.
Now let’s analyze this Gemara in Avodah Zarah the way the Mordechai understood it. Seemingly, it has a nice re'ayah. Go step by step, boys. Go back to Shulchan Aruch. Let me teach you how to navigate properly. Go back to your Shulchan Aruch—siman alef, se'if alef; I mean peh-zayin alef. Look at the Rama: “Kol basar bechalav she'eino asur min haTorah mutar bahana'ah.” You see, the Rama says mutar bahana'ah. The first thing you do is go to the Shach. Shach bet. I’m not reading the whole Shach, boys. I just need the first line, right next to the first line—I don’t know, it’s ten lines down: “vechen katav haMordechai, perek Ein Ma'amidin.” That’s the Mordechai I just quoted to you. That Mordechai, by the way, was quoted in the Darkei Moshe we just read. So everything—the axis—is on the Mordechai here. That’s the axis of this whole story.
You ask your rabbi, “Where did the Rama get this from? What’s his proof?” I don’t know what his proof is, but the Mordechai has a proof; we rely on the fact that the Mordechai has a proof. The Mordechai has a good proof, so it’s good enough for the Mordechai; it’s good enough for the Rama.
Comes the Gaon miVilna, rabotai. What’s the purpose of the Gaon miVilna on Shulchan Aruch? Sources. You learn that he’s the source: he tells you where every halachah is sourced. So look at the Rama, “kol basar bechalav she'eino asur min haTorah mutar behana'ah,” and look at the Gaon miVilna, gimmel. You see “kol basar”? “Avodah Zarah sham amud bet, bein leRav Chisda bein leRav Nachman” (Whether according to Rav Chisda or Rav Nachman), “aval leShemu'el lo parich” (But according to Shemuel, the objection is not raised), “Mordechai sham.” The Gaon miVilna says, “Bingo, the Mordechai.” Because the Gemara’s question was, according to the last two answers, bein leRav Nachman bein leRav Chisda, lo parich—I mean, parich—asur behana'ah. How come they didn’t ask according to Shemuel? Because Shemuel, basar bechalav, basar bechalav is—
Comes a rabbi called Tosafot. Tosafot, by the way, is in Chulin. Rabotai, does everybody have a Chulin? You can learn this Tosafot together. Open up your Chulin, neshamah, kuf-tet-zayin, 116. If you have it, it’s the bottom Tosafot on the page. Kuf-tet-zayin, the bottom Tosafot. Tosafot has a very, very, very strong question. Tosafot says: Why does the Gemara over there in Avodah Zarah, in the name of Shemuel, say that the reason the cheese is asurah is that they ma'amid it be'or kevat neveilah? Why does it say neveilah? Why not just say they ma'amid it with kesherah, even? If they ma'amid it with kesherah, it’s basar bechalav. So you’re right: either I can’t eat the cheese because it’s neveilah, or I can’t eat the cheese because it’s basar bechalav. Why did the Gemara have to say neveilah? It could simply say, “Rabotai, do you know why you can’t eat goyim’s cheese? Shema'amidin et hachalav be'or kevat kesherah.” What did it have to say neveilah for? Kesherah is also going to be a problem, yes, basar bechalav. Do you understand Tosafot’s question? Read the Tosafot, rabotai.
“Teima, debagemara,” I guess the Gemara is Avodah Zarah, kaf-tet, amud bet—it’s not amud bet, but it’s the same Gemara in two places, kuf-tet-zayin amud alef and Avodah Zarah. In two places, this Gemara: “Demefaresh ta'ama de'asru gevinot ovdei kochavim mipnei shema'amidin otan be'or kevat neveilah, mai irya neveilah, afilu kesherah nami” (The Gemara explains that non-Jewish cheese was prohibited because it was set with the stomach lining of a carcass; why a carcass specifically, and not a kosher animal?). Hear, boys? “Veyesh lomar deshum basar bechalav lo hayu asurim misafeik mishum deleika ela issura derabbanan dederech bishul asrah Torah” (One can say that meat and milk would not be prohibited out of doubt, since it is only a rabbinic prohibition, for the Torah prohibited the manner of cooking). Got the answer? Tosafot just said a big chiddush (novel insight).
He said, “I have gevinot akum here. I want to eat it. I don’t know how they made it. I don’t know how they made it. I have a safek about how they made this cheese. I don’t know how they made it. If my safek is that they put it in or kevat kesherah, what’s the status of this cheese? Asurah min haTorah or asurah miderabbanan?” I repeat, boys: derabbanan. Of course, derabbanan! So I have this cheese here; I have a safek. If the reason were basar bechalav, I would matir the cheese: safek derabbanan lekula. The only time bishul basar bechalav is asur is derech bishul. But if you tell me my safek is not basar bechalav, my safek is or kevat neveilah, that’s issur de'oraita! Safek de'oraita, lechumra!
Hold on, do you understand Tosafot? Tosafot says that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah is davka (specifically). Rabotai, I’m looking at a cheese here. Do I know how the goy made it? No. I have no idea how he made the cheese. He could have made it a million ways. He could use rennet, for all I know. I don’t know how he made it. All I know is one thing: the rabbis came along and said you can’t eat the cheese. So Tosafot says, “I’ll tell you why. Shemuel said it’s because maybe they used neveilah.” It’s a safek whether they used neveilah, because I don’t know. Good. But if they used neveilah, that’s safek de'oraita. So I have a safek de'oraita about this cheese; it’s asur.
But if the reason were that maybe they used basar from a kesherah, and therefore this cheese has basar bechalav, that basar bechalav was not cooked. It’s only asur miderabbanan, so the cheese would have a safek derabbanan, and I would matir it! Which means the chachamim (rabbinic sages): Tosafot learns that the Gemara in Avodah Zarah is davka! When Shemuel said neveilah, he meant neveilah, period. And if it were basar bechalav, the cheese would be mutar! That’s the Mordechai’s re'ayah.
That’s the Mordechai’s re'ayah? That’s to docheh him! What are you—? No, no, no, that is the re'ayah, because it’s talking about a case of safek derabbanan—That’s what—no, it’s a—Od pa'am, od pa'am, od pa'am. You’re too fast for me, too fast for me. I have to go slow; you’re too fast for me.
No, no. According to the Mordechai, the Gemara here obviously learned that it’s not only neveilah, but also basar bechalav. He didn’t make a chiluk (distinction). The Mordechai, by the way, says, “I have a re'ayah from the Gemara!” Mordechai, Chacham Mordechai, what’s your re'ayah? The Gemara is talking about neveilah! Somebody asked me that question just before the shiur. The Gemara is talking about neveilah; what’s the Mordechai talking about basar bechalav? Even yes, ein issur chal al issur (one prohibition does not take effect upon another). It’s talking about neveilah—where did you get—? Ela, the Mordechai must have learned that lav davka neveilah; hu hadin (the same applies) basar bechalav. Therefore, they ma'amid it in many ways. They either ma'amid it this way or that way, and the Gemara says there’s no issur hana'ah in either case: not in the neveilah system, not in the basar bechalav system.
But according to Tosafot, there’s only one reason why gevinot are asur: because of neveilah. There was no basar bechalav question bichlal (at all)! Therefore, I’m saying that according to Tosafot, it could be that basar bechalav really is asur behana'ah. You have no re'ayah from that Gemara! The Gemara wasn’t talking about basar bechalav bichlal! According to the Mordechai, you’re right; for some reason, we’re talking about basar bechalav. But according to Tosafot, who clearly said the Gemara is not talking about basar bechalav, there’s no re'ayah. The whole re'ayah of the Mordechai fell out the window!
But it’s still basar bechalav because there’s neveilah inside. No, there’s no basar bechalav; there’s neveilah! Tosafot says, adraba (on the contrary), first of all, ein issur chal al issur; we already learned that. No, no, we learned it! The Rabbanan wouldn’t be oser, Tosafot says. I wouldn’t have aser. Why am I oser? What kind of—what kind of—The cheese has neveilah in it, yes. But was the last question about hana'ah on the cheese or on the case? It’s the cheese, the cheese, the cheese, the cheese! That’s a case of safek? Yeah. The cheese. No, I don’t know how the goy made it. So Tosafot says, guess what? If the whole issue were basar bechalav, the cheese would be mutar, safek derabbanan lekula. That’s why the Gemara set it up as what? Neveilah, because that’s safek de'oraita.
Good. So according to Tosafot, there is no basar bechalav in this case. So why would you bring me a re'ayah, Mordechai, that from this Gemara you see basar bechalav, and you see that the Gemara didn’t ask about hana'ah? That’s why the Mordechai says, “Veyesh dochin.” Veyesh dochin is the—Tosafot. It is Tosafot! What was the Mordechai’s understanding of the Gemara? He must have understood the Gemara this way: Listen, why did the Gemara say neveilah? Neveilah lav davka. There are Rishonim (early authorities) like the Ramban and the Ritva, I think, who also learned that the Gemara is lav davka. You know what they said? Listen: a goy, what does he use—a kasher, a kasher keivah (kosher stomach)? Is there a kasher keivah? Mistama (presumably), the goy was ma'amid it in a neveilah, but hu hadin kesherah. Why did he choose neveilah? He’s a goy; what’s he using? You think he went to save meat in his refrigerator? But hu hadin—that’s the way the Ritva—So mistama the Mordechai understood it like those Rishonim: it’s lav davka, and therefore he had a proof. Tosafot says, “Hold it! It cannot be basar bechalav, because if it were basar bechalav, the cheese would be mutar!”
Look at the HaGaon miVilna, by the way. The HaGaon miVilna fixes the Mordechai for us, so to speak. Look at the parentheses of the HaGaon miVilna, right where we left off. “Ayen bechiddushei—” What’s R'A? R' Akiva Eiger. Ah, R' Akiva Eiger. Yeah, he says, “Ayen, ayen bechiddushei R' Akiva Eiger.” Who’s to stop? If the Gaon tells you ayen, you ayen; you don’t—It says ayen. Why, boys, is that such a shock? He says ayen; we have to ma'ayen (examine closely) now. You ready to learn R' Akiva Eiger properly, boys? What does R' Akiva Eiger do here? He’s going to ask the question I just asked you. Rabotai, Chacham Mordechai, what’s your re'ayah? According to Tosafot, the Gemara—he learned the Gemara—cannot be talking about basar bechalav. Once you say it’s not talking about basar bechalav, your re'ayah is out the window!
Look at R' Akiva Eiger. You see: “vechen katav haMordechai b'perek Ein Ma'amidin, ayen sham” (see there), “shehevi re'ayah meha d'amrinan mipnei mah asru gevinot ovdei kochavim, nochrim, gevinot nochrim, b'mai, mipnei shema'amidin otam be'or keivat neveilah, v'amai eino asur gam ken b'hana'ah mishum basar bechalav, ela al korchach (necessarily), kevan d'havi rak dikvishah, derabbanan eino asur b'hana'ah.” That’s the Mordechai.
“V'kasheh li,” R' Akiva Eiger says, “d'ha be'emet kasheh, lemai nakat hata'am dema'amidim be'or keivat neveilah? Why would they have to bring neveilah? Ha gam be'or keivat kesherah havei basar bechalav? Vechen hikshu beTosafot, vetirtzu, keivan dehavi rak basar bechalav derabbanan, lo chaishinan lesfeika. Ve'im ken, azda hara'ayah zo.” The Mordechai’s re'ayah has azda. Mah zeh azda? It walked away. “De'inyan be'isur hana'ah mishum basar bechalav lo chaishinan lesfeika.” Ein hachi nami, maybe it’s asur behana'ah, but I’m not going to oser gevinot on a safek. But ein hachi nami, behana'ah zeh asur. Do you understand R' Akiva Eiger’s problem here? He says that lefi shitat haTosafot (according to the Tosafot’s view), azda lei hara'ayah mehaMordechai.
Huh? Yes. Huh? So that’s what the HaGaon miVilna—When it comes a little later, go back to the HaGaon miVilna. How could you know? Where is it? Go back to the HaGaon miVilna. He says, “Ayen beTosafot kan, veyesh lomar dehaMordechai sevira lei kemo shesavar haRamban vehaRitva, todah laShem (thank God), dekushta demilta nakat (He stated the factual truth), destam or keivah shelahem neveilah hi (Their ordinary stomach lining is from a carcass).” But ein hachi nami, hu hadin basar bechalav. Kushta demilta.
So first I have to establish one thing. The HaGaon miVilna says not everybody learns the Gemara like Tosafot, that it’s davka neveilah. There’s a shitah that learns hu hadin other: “deGoyim nakat, darkam nakat” (He stated the non-Jews’ usual practice). But you still have the same question. If the reason was basar bechalav, why would they be oser gevinot shel akum misafeik? Tosafot’s question is still there.
To continue learning R' Akiva Eiger, he brings another shitah. Continue reading: “Vechen lemah shetirtzu haRi Migash vehaRambam.” The Ri Migash and the Rambam have the following understanding. The Ri Migash asks Tosafot’s question—the same question, basar bechalav—and comes along with a better, stronger question. He says, “Hold it. If it’s basar bechalav, lich'orah we shouldn’t oser the gevinot. Not only that: even if it were basar bechalav, why don’t you let a kafeila (professional taster) come and taste it? The halachah says that with basar bechalav, if I have a safek whether there’s a flavor of meat in the chalav, I give it to a goy. I tell the goy, ‘Taste it.’ If he doesn’t taste it, it should be mutar.”
This is the Ri Migash’s question. Number one, if you’re talking about basar bechalav, it shouldn’t be a problem, because anyway it’s issur derabbanan. And even if you had a problem of basar bechalav, I have the goy’s cheese now. Give it to the goy; let the goy taste it. If the goy says, “I don’t taste any basar bechalav in here,” it should be mutar. That’s the rule; let him taste it. He says there are laws of a kafeila, and there’s a meisiach lefi tumo (speaking without prompting). You don’t tell him, “I’m being posek (ruling on the matter) based on your word.” He’s an expert; he tastes it. Sixty—he doesn’t taste it even with less than sixty. That’s the Minchat Chinuch: even with less than sixty, somech al kafeila (One may rely on a professional taster). But the point is that a kafeila is an expert. Give it to a taster and let him taste it. So why did the Gemara say basar bechalav? Lich'orah, with basar bechalav, you should be able to.
So he says: You know why you didn’t say basar bechalav? Because you’ll never have a problem with basar bechalav when it comes to cheese. You’ll never have a problem. There’s so much milk and so little basar that it’s always batel beshishim. You’ll never have a problem with basar bechalav making cheese. It’s not a metzi'ut. You don’t have a problem, because there’s so much milk and so little meat. If basar bechalav were the issue, you’d have no problem. However, the or keivat neveilah does something to the cheese. It’s ma'amid it. The halachah says that when you ma'amid something with an isur, even a kol shehu (any amount) is going to be asur, because the whole cheese is built from the isur.
With basar bechalav, you need a shi'ur, because it’s not asur without a shi'ur. Without it, it congeals. Without an isur, you don’t have a—No, without a shi'ur, you don’t have an isur. So with basar bechalav, you should never have a problem, because you always have shishim (sixty) against it. Mah she'ein ken by or keivat neveilah: you’re going to have a problem. Why? Because even if it’s a kol shehu, since that kol shehu is ma'amid the gevinah, you’re ma'amid it be'issur, so the whole thing is issur. Got the Ri Migash’s answer? Rabotai, according to the Ri Migash, again, the Gemara is not talking about basar bechalav. So the kavanah (intention) of the Mordechai has no re'ayah either. Do you understand the principle here? The Mordechai’s re'ayah works only if you mokim (interpret) the Gemara as basar bechalav. Once you say it cannot be talking about basar bechalav, you have no re'ayah to be matir hana'ah.
Read further inside. So what did we say? Once you’re ma'amid even with a small amount—Yeah, when you’re ma'amid be'issur. The neveilah starts off as issur. There’s a kelal like this? Yes, yes, yes. We have issur neveilah, right? It’s an issur—issur atzmi (intrinsic prohibition), that’s what I meant to say. Once you’re ma'amid something be'issur—meaning I wouldn’t have the cheese if it weren’t for that small bit. Bedyuk! The cheese is made from that. The cheese is made from that. That’s called ma'amid bedavar issur (coagulating with a prohibited substance). With basar bechalav, im kein hadavar, the basar was being ma'amid, but there’s no issur of basar bechalav yet. It’s so batel (nullified), so it wasn’t ma'amid be'issur; it’s batel. Therefore, he says, “I would not oser because of basar bechalav, because there is no basar bechalav. If that were the whole reason, I would not be oser.”
Oh, continue, continue, rabotai, inside. “Vechen mah sheteirtzu haRi Migash vehaRambam debe'emet yeish meihastam shishim bechalav, stama you have shishim against it, ve'issuro rak mishum ma'amid, ve'al yedei ma'amid lo na'aseh basar bechalav, umimeila bezeh azda gam kein re'ayatam de'inyan hana'ah mishum basar bechalav, leit kan, demishum ma'amid lo na'aseh basar bechalav.” So basically, he’s asking that according to both of these Rishonim, Tosafot and the Ri Migash, it’s not a basar bechalav issue, and you’re allowed to; it’s okay. But what about the Ramban, who says hu hadin basar bechalav?
The Ramban says in his chiddushav: If you hold the issur of basar bechalav, I’m going to be oser even on a kol shehu when it comes to goyim. Normally we say basar bechalav beshishim, but legabei gevinot akum, I’m going to be oser even less than shishim. Why? Because since it’s a shayachut (possibility) that sometimes happens, even more than shishim—where you don’t have shishim—I’m going to be oser on a kol shehu. Why? Because he’s machmir (stringent) with goyim for some reason. My point is that, according to the Ramban, he has a mahalach (approach) to learn the Gemara as basar bechalav. It’s less than—It’s more than shishim, and still it’s going to be asur. It’s a safek de'oraita, safek derabbanan. No, but he also holds the reason of neveilah. He also holds the reason of neveilah. When we oser on basar bechalav, both reasons apply, because the Gemara said neveilah. You can’t take away the neveilah reason. You can’t take away the neveilah reason.
So the neveilah reason we understand; that’s going to be a—How does the Ramban answer Tosafot’s question? I don’t know how he answers it. All I know is the Ramban says, “I’m worried about it. It always has shishim keneged; in nami, we’re still going to oser it, even with a kol shehu.” Why? By akum, heim machmir because it could come to a case where there’s no bittul (nullification).
Okay, no problem. If I’m learning the Mordechai with that mahalach, I understand. The Gemara was talking about neveilah, and the Gemara was also talking about basar bechalav. Once you can be mokim it as basar bechalav, I’m in the game. All I need is to be mokim basar bechalav. Then I say, “Read the Gemara. First, the second two reasons: asur behana'ah. The first reason did not say asur behana'ah. Why? Because basar bechalav miderabbanan is going to be asur behana'ah,” the Mordechai says.
But if you learn like Tosafot, who says you cannot be mokim it as basar bechalav because with basar bechalav we never would have oser the akum, then according to Tosafot also, that’s the Mordechai when he says, “I have a re'ayah; however, veyesh dochin.” You see: yesh re'ayah, docheh re'ayah. You don’t have a re'ayah keneged (against it). No, you don’t have a re'ayah keneged. It’s talking about basar bechalav. No, no, you don’t have a re'ayah keneged. No, that case is talking about neveilah. That is talking about neveilah. You have no re'ayah that basar bechalav miderabbanan is asur behana'ah. Oh, that’s what the Mordechai writes: yesh dochin. But you can still believe it until you show me a re'ayah that it’s asur. Which means it’s a positive or pass? Positive, pass. You didn’t show me the negative yet, because that’s the—Mordechai, very nice.
By the way, my whole point is that when you read that Shach and it goes to the Mordechai, you think, “Ah, Mordechai!” Hey, not so simple. R' Akiva Eiger makes a whole tumult over this Mordechai. And the Mordechai himself, by the way, if you looked at it inside, says yesh dochin. But lema'aseh (in practice), we have a Rambam.
The last question R' Akiva Eiger asks is the following. Then I’ll leave you with this, guys. I ask you a simple she'eilah. Answer me the she'eilah. I have basar bechalav that I salted. “Ha'im mutar le'echol et zeh?” (Is it permitted to eat this?) No. Asur. Miderabbanan. “Ha'im mutar limkor et zeh?” (Is it permitted to sell this?) Ken, mutar. We posek mutar behana'ah. It’s not only the Rama, by the way; Maran is going to be matir as well. List the rabbis, boys, who are matir hana'ah be'isur derabbanan. List them for me. Number one? Who did you say first? Rambam, by all. Number two? The Mordechai we just went through in Avodah Zarah. Number three? The Shach, kulam. Whom did he quote? The Rama. Darkei Moshe, kulam, same Rama. The Sefer HaChinuch, ve-Ra'ah... Ramban, lo? Oy, he learned the Gemara like the Mordechai. So we have a lot of rabbanim, a lot of tzaddikim (righteous people), who are matir hana'ah. We’re going to take those tzaddikim.
My she'eilah is still like this. You make the call, boys. I take basar bechalav shenimlah (meat and milk that were salted together). What’s the case? Very simple. I have a piece of cheese. It was nimlah be—bezeh be—bebasar. Now it’s a piece of cheese, right? Can I eat it? No. Isur derabbanan. I don’t want to eat it. You know what I want to do? I want to cook it. Mutar o asur (Permitted or prohibited?) Miderabbanan or de'oraita? De'oraita. Very good. Still can’t eat it, right? Once I cook it, now I’m already in the de'oraita land again.
So there are nafka minot. If it’s basar derabbanan, it’s going to be asur to eat miderabbanan, asur to benefit from it—mutar to benefit from it—but, ein hachi nami, it’s going to be asur to cook! Mide'oraita? Mide'oraita! Why? I’m cooking basar bechalav! Yeah, but mah zeh derech bishul? It’s—So derech bishul asrah Torah. Az mah baruch. I’m cooking basar bechalav! Until this point, what is the status of this piece of cheese? Isur derabbanan, yes? When I cook it, what do I do now? I cook basar bechalav. Oh, you’re talking about a case of cooking, not a case of kavush. No, no, no, I cooked it! I cooked it! Bishalti! I put it in a pot and cooked it. De'oraita. De'oraita, chazak. Everybody agrees? It’s very simple.
Then R' Akiva Eiger asks a bomb question on Tosafot. Tosafot, you’re coming and telling me that we would not be oser gevinot akum if it were because of basar bechalav, because it’s a safek derabbanan. Yeah, it’s a safek derabbanan to eat, but to cook it, it’s a safek de'oraita! Which means the Gemara should have said gevinot akum mutar— asur levashel! Mutar ba'achilah. Which may be mutar ba'achilah; ein hachi nami, according to Tosafot, gevinot akum, if it’s a basar bechalav issue, is mutar ba'achilah because safek kavush is derabbanan, but you have a safek de'oraita legabei bishul!
That’s the question he leaves on Tosafot. Tosafot comes along and says that if it’s a basar bechalav issue, we wouldn’t have oser gevinot. Tosafot should have said we wouldn’t have been oser gevinot le'echol, but we still should be oser gevinot levashel! Yeah, obviously not. It’s not obvious to you, Rabbi. He had to say that. It’s not pashut. So, yeah, it’s not a case of a—He mixed—He mixed. Tosafot didn’t go with the mixture. Yeah. Okay, he didn’t go with the mixture. Yeah, but it’s—okay, why mix, why mix? “Amad od davar,” why mix, why mix?
Now look at R' Akiva Eiger inside. Look at this: “Gam kasheh li al teirutz haMordechai degevinot lo ne'esru behana'ah dekavush mutar behana'ah, vechen lefi mah shekatav Tosafot le'inyan hana'ah havei safek derabbanan.” It’s true: le'inyan hana'ah, it’s safek derabbanan. That’s why, if it were a basar bechalav issue, gevinot should be mutar. “Mikol makom adayin kasheh, yehei gvinot denochri asurot la'asot bahem tavshil.” It should be asur to cook gevinot. Tosafot should tell me, or the Gemara should say, “gevinot shel akum asur levashel otam.” There’s a safek de'oraita on—and every gevinah, you never—
By the way, why can’t I eat gevinot akum? I have a safek de'oraita of what? Neveilah. I should have a safek de'oraita on every akum cheese, too. Maybe they made it with basar bechalav, and if they made it with basar bechalav, I can’t cook it. So the Gemara should say gevinot shel akum asur le'echol otam ve'asur levashel otam. It’s the same safek de'oraita. It’s neveilah? If it’s neveilah, I don’t know what it is. If it were neveilah, you’re right, it’s asur to eat it. If it’s basar bechalav, it’s asur to cook it. What do I know about how they made it? You have a safek sefeika? No safek sefeika! I don’t know how they made it. It’s neveilah. Basar bechalav, it’s only derabbanan to cook it—I mean, it’s mutar. Not on neveilah. How do you know how they made it? Maybe they made it with basar bechalav. Sfeika de'oraita, meaning it could be kasher and basar?
Tosafot just came along and said, “If it were basar bechalav, I’m not going to be oser the gevinot.” Rabbi Akiva Eiger is saying, “Why aren’t you going to be oser the gevinot? You still have a safek de'oraita to levashel.” You understand? You understand that this is Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s question? Why does Tosafot come along and say, “Oh, there’s no problem. If it were basar bechalav, no issue; gevinot would be mutar”? He says, “Hey, slow down. Mah zeh mutar?” You’re mixing the Ri Migash with Tosafot. What, that’s that and that’s that? I saw—I—So, therefore, no, there are no shitot anymore. All the shitot are like one chamin. Tosafot didn’t say that sevara. Why didn’t Tosafot say it like the Ri Migash, then? Why did Rabbi Akiva Eiger bring the Ri Migash and Tosafot as separate shitot? Is everybody saying the same thing in different words? They’re different shitot. Tosafot knew how to answer. Tosafot could have said that with basar bechalav it’s batel. What does he have to come along and say, “It’s safek, safek derabbanan”? That means it is basar bechalav. It is basar bechalav; it’s not batel, ela (rather) it’s a safek because it’s derabbanan. He could have said that from the start! But my point is Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s point: Why is Tosafot so certain to come along and say that if it were a basar bechalav issue, it’s mutar, no issue? Lich'orah, that could be an issue. The issue is going to be legabei recooking that gevinah.
We’ll stop here. “Baruch Hashem le'olam amen ve'amen” (Blessed is God forever, amen and amen). Lo bishalti. Kavashti—I soaked or pickled; I didn’t make it bishul.
Gentlemen, let’s talk here while everybody is here. Rabotai, tomorrow’s schedule, so you know what to learn. I should be more specific so you don’t get lost in the—what do you call it?—in the yam yam hahalachah here. Tomorrow we have a specific discussion that I’m going to have to create for you, to build it. So you’re not going to see it in what you’re learning; you’ll see it more or less. What I want you to do tomorrow is as follows: in the halachah, yeah, we’re not doing this to become rabbanim, so we don’t have to study every halachah to exhaust it to the end, and we’re not going to be tested on this yet.
I want you to see the following tomorrow, gentlemen: bet is easy; bet you could do in one second. Bet is easy; bet is nothing. I want you to see gimel. Tomorrow, do gimel, and I want you to see the Shach. I’ll tell you which Shach I want you to see. Rabotai, tomorrow’s subject is gimel. When I say gimel, I mean the Tur as well: Tur gimel with the Beit Yosef. Then read gimel in Shulchan Aruch. Don’t spend so much time on the Shach and Taz, except for the ones I tell you, because that’s what we’re probably going to talk about. Gimel: read the Shach dalet. Let’s make sure. No, no, no—vav. Shach vav. Vav, not the other one. No? As well? Just try. But read the whole Beit Yosef, read the Rama: “nahagu la'asot chalav mishkedim”—the custom was to make milk from almonds. We’ll read that as well, the almond milk story. Then from that, read the Shach vav, and then we’ll talk tomorrow. That’s the main thing here: the Tur, gimel, and Shach vav.