I didn’t want to give the shiur (lesson) on this subject at 12:00, when we’re preparing for mar'it ayin (appearance of impropriety), because then we’ll get confused. This is a stand-alone shiur, and it needs to be discussed as a hakdamah (introduction) to the subjects of basar bechalav (meat and milk). It’s important to know this connection between the inyanim (matters), because we’re already learning this whole business of lo tevashel (Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk), lo tevashel, lo tevashel, sheloshah pe’amim (three times). Tana d'vei Rabbi Yishmael (the teaching of Rabbi Yishmael): chad le'issur bishul (One for the prohibition of cooking), chad le'issur achilah (One for the prohibition of eating), and chad le'issur hana'ah (One for the prohibition of benefit).
So far, we’ve learned why the Torah said it belashon bishul (in the language of cooking): to teach us derech bishul asrah Torah (the Torah prohibited the manner of cooking). Only when it’s a derech bishul (the manner of cooking) is it assur min haTorah (prohibited by Torah law). If it isn’t derech bishul, it’s assur only miderabbanan (by rabbinic law). That explains that.
The Torah also clearly does not say lo tochlu basar bechalav (You shall not eat meat with milk). It doesn’t say achilah (eating). So the Gemara Pesachim learns a chiddush (novel insight) from that. Why doesn’t it clearly say lo tochlu basar bechalav? Because if it had said achilah, achilah would mean derech hana'ah (manner of benefit): eating basar bechalav in a normal way. But let’s say I take basar bechalav and put bitter herbs on it, or bitter syrup, and now, when I eat it, it’s mixed with a davar mar (bitter substance), some bitter stuff. Clearly, that isn’t derech achilah (normal manner of eating). The question is, are you chayav (liable) for basar bechalav bechi hai gavna (in this case)?
The Gemara Pesachim says, “Yes, you will be.” Since the Torah did not write basar bechalav belashon achilah, lo tochal, even if you eat it shelo kederech achilah (not in the usual manner of eating), you’ll be chayav. That’s a chiddush regarding basar bechalav: even shelo kederech achilah, you’re chayav. By the way, that does not apply to chelev (forbidden animal fat). Take chelev, for example. The Torah clearly says lo tochal: don’t eat chelev. So if I took the same chelev, put a davar mar on it, and ate it, min haTorah you’re patur (exempt). That’s not called achilah. Whereas with basar bechalav, since the word achilah isn’t there, it’s more open to all forms of achilah. That’s clear.
By the way, this is the Rambam. The Rambam says explicitly in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot (Laws of Forbidden Foods), chapter 14, halachah 10: “Kol ha'ochlim ha'assurim eino chayav aleihem ad sheyochel otam derech hana'ah” (For all forbidden foods, one is not liable unless one eats them for benefit). All things that are assur be'achilah (forbidden to eat) are only assur when you eat them derech hana'ah, meaning bederech hana'ah. The exceptions are basar bechalav and kil'ei hakerem (forbidden vineyard mixtures). Kil'ei hakerem also doesn’t say achilah. Why? “Lefi shelo ne'emar bahem achilah, ela hotzi issur achilatan bilshon acheret, bilshon bishul uvilshon hekdesh, le'essor otam ve'afilu shelo kederech hana'ah” (Because eating them was not stated in the language of eating, but their prohibition was expressed in another language, the language of cooking and the language of consecrated property, to prohibit them even when not consumed in the usual manner of benefit). That’s halachah 10.
Halachah 11: “Keitzad? Harei shehimchah et hachelev” (How so? If he melted the forbidden fat). He took the chelev and melted it down. “Vegama'o keshehu cham, ad shenichveh gerono mimenu” (He swallowed it while it was hot, until his throat was burned by it). Clearly, that’s not the derech. To guzzle down boiling-hot chelev is lo kederech (not in the usual manner). So the Rambam says: “O she'achal chelev chai” (or he ate the fat raw), also not the derech; “o she'erev devarim marim” (or he mixed in bitter things), such as “rosh vela'anah” (wormwood), “ve'achlan keshehen marim, harei zeh patur” (and ate them while they were bitter, he is exempt). “Ve'im irev davar mar betoch kedeirah shel basar bechalav ve'achalo, chayav” (But if he mixed a bitter substance into a pot of meat and milk and ate it, he is liable).
Are we clear on the Rambam’s opinion here? There’s a fundamental chiluk (distinction) between basar bechalav and other cases: although the Torah prohibited only derech bishul, it prohibited eating it shelo kederech achilah. You need derech bishul; you don’t need derech achilah. Therefore, even if you ate basar bechalav shelo kederech achilah, you’ll be chayav, unlike chelev. That’s befeirush (explicitly).
The question we’re asking today is this: The Gemara in Avodah Zarah (idolatry tractate), which we read a little of here in Chullin (non-sacred matters tractate), discusses neveilah (an animal that died without proper slaughter). What did the Torah say to do with a neveilah? “Lager... titnena va'achalah” (Give it to the stranger, and you shall eat it), “o machor timkrena lenochri” (or sell it to a non-Jew). The Gemara learns from the word va'achalah that with neveilah, too, you’re chayav only if it’s derech achilah. But the Gemara asks: What if the neveilah became masri'ach? Masri'ach means it spoiled; it became putrid, rotten. The Gemara says that if the neveilah became masri'ach, it’s not considered achilah, so you’re not chayav for eating it. Only va'achalah—but not if it becomes masri'ach.
My question to you today, gentlemen, is: What’s the din (law) with basar bechalav that became masri'ach? I’ll give you the two tzedadim (possibilities). Do we say, “Basar bechalav shehisri'ach, zeh lo derech achilah” (meat and milk that spoiled is not the usual manner of eating), and that’s fine? I don’t care about derech achilah; I don’t need derech achilah for basar bechalav. What’s the difference if it’s masri'ach? What’s the difference if it’s a davar mar? What’s the difference if you put pepper all over it? Bottom line, it’s shelo kederech achilah. We’ve already proved that shelo kederech achilah is chayav.
Or do I say, “No, no, no, slow down”? It’s lo kederech achilah, but it’s still ochel (food). It’s lo kederech achilah, but it’s still ochel. But once it’s masri'ach, zeh lo ochel (it’s not food). Maybe I learned the law of hisri'ach (spoiling) from neveilah. Do you hear the chakirah (the question we’re presenting here today)? Should I say it again? The chakirah is as follows: regarding basar bechalav, we’re clear that if you put a davar mar in it, you’re chayav. That’s the Rambam. We’re also clear that if you ate a neveilah that was masri'ach, you’re not chayav. That’s clear from the Gemarot. Our question is about basar bechalav shehisri'ach.
I can bring a re'ayah (proof) from the Rambam. I’m going to read you the Rambam again, properly. Listen carefully so we can be medayeik (precise) in the Rambam. You tell me what you think the Rambam holds regarding basar bechalav shehisri'ach. I’m reading from Ma'achalot Assurot, chapter 14. “Keitzad? Harei shehimchah et hachelev”—we’re talking about chelev first—“vegama'o keshehu cham ad shenichveh gerono mimenu.” What’s the din if you drank hot chelev and burned your throat? Patur. Why? Because what does it say about chelev? Achilah.
“O she'erev devarim marim, kegon rosh vela'anah, o letoch kedeirah shel neveilah ve'achlan keshehen marim.” Now listen to these words: “O she'achal ochel ha'asur achar shehisri'ach, vehiv'ish uvatel me'ochel adam, harei zeh patur” (Or if he ate forbidden food after it spoiled, became putrid, and ceased to be food fit for a person, he is exempt). “Ve'im eirev davar mar betoch kedeirah shel basar bechalav ve'achalo, chayav.”
Rabotai, do you hear the Rambam here? How did this Rambam enter your brain? It’s the first time you’re hearing it. I’ll read it again. You should be jumping when you hear this leshon haRambam (the Rambam’s wording). The Rambam says that we’re talking about other prohibitions: “Ve'achlan keshehen marim, o she'achal ochel ha'asur achar shehisri'ach.” What’s the din? “Harei zeh patur.” Now he goes to basar bechalav: “Ve'im eirev davar mar betoch kedeirah shel basar bechalav ve'achalo, chayav.” What example did he give for basar bechalav? Mar (bitter)! Why didn’t he mention hisri'ach?
You’re trying to compare the cases. With neveilah, you tell me davar mar patur, hisri'ach patur. But regarding basar bechalav, davar mar chayav. What would you say about davar mar and hisri'ach? I could bring the whole list! He brought four or five things for chelev; he brought two here. So you say lav davka (not specifically). But if I wanted to be davka (specifically), do you hear the proof? If I wanted to understand the Rambam davka, and not say lav davka, I’d say: “Rambam, you’re listing all the cases for me. So just tell me hisri'ach for the other ones. You didn’t tell me hisri'ach; you told me all of them: mar, hisri'ach, and so on. So just tell me mar; don’t tell me hisri'ach.” But he gave you the list. So obviously the Rambam had no problem with ink; he had no problem with giving me all the cases. When it came to basar bechalav, he wrote davar mar.
Because of this diyuk (inference) in the Rambam, many rabbis want to say—including a rabbi called the Chavat Da'at (Chavat Da'at commentary)—that in hachi nami (indeed, that is so), there’s a difference between hisri'ach and mar. What’s the difference? Like I told you, hisri'ach is not ochel. A davar mar is ochel, but it’s eaten shelo kederech achilah. So in hachi nami, the Torah says regarding basar bechalav, lo tevashel. Lo tevashel teaches me that even if you eat it shelo kederech achilah, meaning it’s ochel but you ate it shelo kederech, you’re liable. But once it’s masri'ach, it’s not considered ochel. Therefore, I learn the regular din of masri'ach from the din of neveilah. Just as neveilah masri'ach is patur, so too with basar bechalav.
What’s called hana'ah (benefit), though? Shelo kederech? “No, I’m saying, isn’t hana'ah just like your stomach is full?” No, enjoyment, honey! Enjoyment! A guy eats chelev, it burns his throat, and he says, “Ah, that’s hana'ah, boy!” He has to go to the hospital. That’s hana'ah? Or do you have a very high threshold for hana'ah? That’s not hana'ah for most people. A guy takes chelev and puts black pepper, red pepper, and all the spices on it. Bechavod (please), eat it. Oh, I forgot salt. He puts more stuff on it. So if a guy just eats basar bechalav without chewing it? “Nutrition, you’re right. Maybe you get the nutrition inside your stomach.” That’s called hana'ah? If you think that’s called hana'ah, then you shouldn’t be in charge of lunch anymore, if that’s hana'ah for you guys. What kind of lunch would you take? That’s hana'ah? What kind of hana'ah is that? That’s not hana'ah.
Rabotai, wait; let’s stay on topic. Anyway, this is what I’m saying. Al kol panim (in any case), that’s the Chavat Da'at’s re'ayah. The Rambam is davka. The Rambam knows how to write all the cases. He wrote davar mar. He brings an interesting re'ayah.
“No, cham (hot), scalding, is still food.” Right. Cham is still food. “With chelev, he’d be patur.” With chelev, he’d be patur. “Is the efer (ash) of basar bechalav mutar (permitted)? If you burn basar bechalav, its efer?” I don’t know. You learned it in the first halachah. What does the Pitchei Teshuvah (Entries of Repentance) say? You have to bury the efer. You have to—so I’m asking: is efer worse than eating efer? I’m saying, if a guy wants to eat the efer, and you say that you have to bury it and can’t have hana'ah from it, right? “We’re talking about eating, buddy. We’re eating.” Right, so do you want to say eating it is mutar? Then why can I have hana'ah?
The Rambam holds that if there’s no issur achilah (prohibition of eating), there’s no issur hana'ah (prohibition of benefit), so that doesn’t work. “I lost you. Go again.” The Rambam holds that if there’s no issur, the issur hana'ah comes from the issur achilah. If there’s no issur achilah, there’s no issur hana'ah. “No. So if he holds that its efer has to be buried, that means it’s assur to have hana'ah from it.” No. So that would mean that you can’t eat the efer either, right? I’m accepting all your assumptions. Is there a Rambam that says you have to bury the efer? I don’t know if there’s such a din. I don’t know if the first assumption is emet (true). Ask your brother.
Rabotai, the Chavat Da'at brings a re'ayah for what we want to say. What’s his re'ayah? He says, haga atzmecha (consider this): Let’s say you take chelev that was made bitter with a davar mar. What’s the din if you ate it at that point? Patur. Now I was mematek (sweeten) it. He made it mar, and then sweetened it again. What’s the din at that point? Chayav. You understand that, correct?
But what about chelev shenisrach (fat that became spoiled)? After it became spoiled, you somehow made it unspoiled. There, he says, you’re going to be patur, because once it’s spoiled, paka issuro (its prohibition has lapsed). Regarding the case where you made the chelev bitter, lo paka issuro: its prohibition has not lapsed. It’s just not derech achilah. It’s still ochel, but it’s not derech achilah. Once you sweeten it, it becomes derech achilah again. But with chelev that you made masri'ach, paka issuro. It’s not a shem issur (status of prohibition) at all.
Once it’s paka issuro, that’s it. Paka issuro—does it come back? Does it come back? Paka. What is paka? There’s no chozer vene'or be'issur chametz (the prohibition of chametz reawakens). It doesn’t come back; paka. There’s a difference between its being a shem ochel (status as food), where the reason for the patur at this point is that it’s not derech achilah, and its being ochel but not derech achilah. If I turn it back into derech achilah, it’s back in the game. Here, there’s no issur at all. The issur is gone. It’s not ochel.
So he wants to show that fundamentally there’s a difference between not being derech le'echol and being masri'ach. That’s the derech (approach) of the Chavat Da'at, and lich'orah (apparently) he has a solid basis from shitat haRambam (the Rambam’s approach). That’s what he says. This is what he accepts as an emunah (belief). The Chavat Da'at accepts it as an emunah. He says that with chelev, for sure it’s that way. He takes it as peshitut (obvious) that im chazar umitko legabei mar (if he sweetened it again in the case of bitterness), vadai yiheyeh chayav (he will certainly be liable). That makes sense, because what do you mean? It’s still ochel. Why am I patur here? Lo kederech. Okay, turn it back to the derech, and you’ll be chayav. Mah she'ein ken hisri'ach (unlike spoiled food): zeh bikhlal lo ochel (it isn’t food at all). Bikhlal, it’s not chelev. You don’t say that masri'ach is chelev, only spoiled. Masri'ach means it’s not chelev. Once paka issuro, you can’t resuscitate an issur once it’s paka. Therefore, that’s what he says: those are the rules. Paka; it’s gone.
It’s not a lulav (palm branch) anymore. I can’t turn it, abracadabra, back into a lulav. But you can hear that once it’s paka, it goes off completely. Mah she'ein ken derech: derech depends on the derech. Is it derech achilah or not? Now it’s not derech; now it is derech. But you wouldn’t say that something that’s paka comes back. That’s a greater chiddush to say, put it that way. So the Chavat Da'at says, “I don’t see the issur coming back once it says paka.” That’s how the Chavat Da'at understands it, and he has a good basis from the Rambam.
The other tzad is: How can you say it’s not ochel? Let’s put it this way: it’s not ra'ui la'achilat adam (fit for human consumption). It’s not lo kederech; it’s not ra'ui la'achilat adam. Paka issura. The issura, paka issura. The issur of chelev is paka. You want to say it comes back? Okay, that’s a chiddush. Normally we say, “Keivan depaka issura, paka” (Once the prohibition has lapsed, it has lapsed). We’re talking about chelev! The Chavat Da'at’s re'ayah is meant to show you that fundamentally there’s a difference between davar mar and masri'ach. That’s what he holds: with basar bechalav, it’s the same law. For davar mar, even kodem shemitko (before it is sweetened), you’re going to be chayav, because you don’t need derech achilah. But masri'ach is not ochel, so you’re not chayav. “What do you mean, what is ochel? Paka!” That’s what the re'ayah is for: paka!
“You’re making something masri'ach and then making it un-masri'ach? Mainly basar bechalav. I mean, for sure, I made basar ba'olam. In this case, I made it as an olah (burnt offering). Is that basar olah the issur?” Yes. “Hisri'ach!” Okay, but, guys, hello! I made an experiment, like VHS. It comes back! He’d say, “Ha ka paka!” It’s just showing you, in principle, that there’s a difference, rabotai. That’s one way of learning.
Now you have another way of learning. Another way is: It’s not ochel. It doesn’t matter; there’s no issur in saying paka. Stam (simply), it was food; now it’s food—what do you mean? There’s no din of paka. Paka is a din of issur.
Rabotai, the other tzad is Rav Chaim on the Rambam. I don’t know if we have that sefer (book), but if you look at Rav Chaim on the Rambam, he brings a re'ayah the other way. He says, “No, when I read this Rambam, I see that basar bechalav yehe chayav bein davar mar bein masri'ach” (meat and milk will be liable whether it is bitter or spoiled). He says lav davka. What’s his re'ayah? He says lav davka, as you said, but he says a little more. It’s easy to say lav davka, lav davka. What’s his sevara (reasoning)?
He says, “Hold on. Why is the Rambam bringing me the law of neveilah in the middle of the laws of basar bechalav? He puts everything in one halachah: neveilah is like this, basar bechalav is like this. It mashma from the way the Rambam sets it out that whatever doesn’t apply by neveilah does apply by basar bechalav. Otherwise, why bring neveilah into the halachah? You’re making a comparison, Rambam.”
The Rambam’s language is: “O letoch kedeirah shel neveilah, ve'achalan keshehen marim, o she'achal achar shehisri'ach, harei zeh patur. Ve'im eirev davar mar letoch kedeirah shel basar bechalav...” (Or into a pot of neveilah, and he ate them while bitter, or ate after it spoiled, he is exempt. But if he mixed a bitter substance into a pot of meat and milk...). It sounds like he’s saying: You brought me neveilah, and then you brought me basar bechalav. Lich'orah, it’s to tell me that these dinim work exactly oppositely: whatever is patur by neveilah will be chayav by basar bechalav.
So there’s a school of thought that says masri'ach by basar bechalav will be chayav. It’s a big machloket (dispute) among the acharonim (later authorities). The Aruch Hashulchan (Set Table commentary), for example, writes—and it’s in Aruch Hashulchan, 87:3—“Ve'od yesh bah chomer mikol issurei achilah, shekol issurei achilah ein lokin aleihen ela kederech hana'atan, mipnei shelo shelahen katuv bilshon achilah. Mashma: derech achilah. Aval basar bechalav lokin af shelo kederech hana'atan. Vechen amru Chazal, shelefichach lo ketiv bevasar bechalav leshon achilah, lomar shelokin aleihen afilu shelo kederech hana'atan. Velafi... lachein, afilu im eirev davar mar letoch kedeirah shel basar bechalav, chayav. Vechen im achal habasar bechalav achar shehisri'ach, venitbatel me'ochel adam, nir'ah li dechayav.”
So the Aruch Hashulchan, Epstein, holds chayav! Then he writes in parentheses, “Kein mashma mehaRambam” (That is what the Rambam implies). Where does it mashma from the Rambam? From the fact that he puts neveilah and basar bechalav back-to-back. It mashma! Whatever is patur by neveilah is chayav by basar bechalav.
Then he writes, “Ve'af shelo siyeim zeh behedya” (Although he did not state this explicitly), “lo chash leha'arich” (he did not feel the need to elaborate). He didn’t write every case again, as you said. “I’m not going to write you a shopping list every single time. You know the shopping list. I wrote it once for neveilah. You know how to deduce the opposite?” He should have written “vechulei” (and so on). He shouldn’t have written anything! You can say that whatever is there is the opposite. You’re right, boys. In the Rambam, you can go both ways. You like to say davka; he’s going to say lav davka. But nonetheless, that’s kelal (principle) number one. What is shitat haRambam? We clearly know what the acharonim grapple with. The Aruch Hashulchan is clear: he says basar bechalav shehisri'ach...
Now let me point out, folks: for the issur to take effect, it must not be masri'ach. The shem basar bechalav takes effect when it’s meshubach (enhanced). We’re talking about after it takes effect; now it became masri'ach. But you cannot make basar bechalav mitchilah pagum (flawed; spoiled in taste) from the outset. Havantem (Do you understand)? If I take masri'ach basar and masri'ach chalav, and put them together, it doesn’t become basar bechalav. I have to take basar meshubach, chalav meshubach, put them together, make basar bechalav, and now it becomes masri'ach. That’s what we were discussing.
“Now we get to the next case. Oh, what’s the difference? You’re saying that to make an issur take effect, just like with neveilah, the neveilah doesn’t start off masri'ach. Neveilah starts off as a regular issur, then becomes masri'ach. For the issur to take effect, it has to take effect b'shevach (in an improved state).” The Aruch Hashulchan speaks about that clearly, by the way. He writes, “Aval hithavut habasar b'chalav tzarich b'lo pegam” (But the formation of meat and milk requires there to be no flaw). We’ll learn that later, in siman 33, se'if 33.
Now we get to the next question: What’s the din for basar bechalav regarding pagum? I’ll explain. With neveilah, we have a law that says va'achalah: you sell it to the ger (convert) or give it to the ger, va'achalah. What do we learn from there? If the neveilah makes something pagum, makes the food pagum, you’re not chayav. Let’s say a neveilah fell into some food, and as a result there’s a ta'am (taste) of neveilah in the food. I understand, but it’s a ta'am pagum (offensive taste). Do you understand the case I’m giving you, boys? The neveilah itself is not pagum. It itself is ra'ui, derech achilah. But it fell into a type of food where mixing the two items makes the ta'am that the neveilah gives the food pagum. The Gemara clearly says: it’s not ochel; it’s pagum. Havantem?
I’m asking you the same question about basar bechalav. I have nice basar bechalav. It fell into something, and as a result, the ta'am of the basar bechalav makes that food pagum. Basar bechalav shenafal l'heiter (meat and milk that fell into permitted food), but the permitted food now became pagum from the taste of the basar bechalav. Not every combination of ingredients mixes properly or makes a ta'am leshevach (taste that improves). This combination made it pagum. He said, “What did you do? You put basar bechalav in here; it stinks. You ruined the whole thing.”
My she'eilah (question) is: do we say the din of pagum applies too? Lich'orah, it should depend on this same machloket. Specifically, for those who hold that masri'ach means you don’t learn from neveilah, the same law would apply to pagum: it would be chayav. It became masri'ach? No—what I mean is, lich'orah, if you’re not learning anything from neveilah, you say neveilah has its own din and basar bechalav has its own gedarim (definitions), and masri'ach is chayav; then pagum would also be chayav.
Or, according to the other shitot (approaches), which will say no, you don't learn there are similarities between neveilah and basar bechalav, masri'ach has the same din, so maybe pagum has the same din too. When it’s pagum, maybe it has the same din—or maybe not. We could make it depend on the same machloket.
“What does the Rambam say? This is shelo k'derech achilah.” Oh, so it’s lo k'derech. It’s lo k'derech. It’s not masri'ach. Masri'ach means—“You’re right, you’re right. It’s not masri'ach, but it’s pagum. There’s a law of pagum, where an item falls into food and makes it pagum. It’s not masri'ach, but with neveilah you’re patur in that case. There is a special gzeirat hakatuv (scriptural decree): achilah, something pagum—it’s not achilah anymore.”
So I ask: What about basar bechalav? You don’t have to think too much, boys. It’s a befeirush Rambam regarding pagum. The Rambam is in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot, chapter 15, halachah 30. Listen to the Rambam’s lashon (wording), and you’ll tell me what he holds about pagum: “V'im hayah basar b'chalav shenaflu lidvash” (If meat and milk fell into honey). Do you hear the case? It’s regular basar bechalav, regular basar bechalav leshevach, and what happened? The basar bechalav fell into honey. So you have to ask a goy (non-Jew) to taste the honey. “Ve'im amar ein bo ta'am” (If he said there is no taste in it)—if he says, “You don’t taste anything; it didn’t give a ta'am”—“o she'amar yesh bo ta'am umita'am ra hu vaharei pegamo hakol mutar” (or he said there is a taste, but it is a bad taste and has spoiled it, everything is permitted).
So the Rambam says explicitly that regarding pegam, regarding pegam, pagum is mutar regarding basar bechalav. Now we have one more puzzle, one more piece. According to the shitot that say masri'ach is not chayav—like Rabbeinu Chaim HaLevi—that school is fine: masri'ach is not chayav, and pagum is not chayav. We’re learning only derech achilah and davar mar; we’re not learning everything. Therefore, you come along and say that when it’s pagum and has made a ta'am ra, that too is going to be patur by basar bechalav.
But according to the school that says masri'ach is chayav, how can masri'ach be chayav and pagum be patur? According to the school that says masri'ach is patur, there’s no problem: masri'ach is patur, pagum is patur. But if you hold that masri'ach is chayav, is it logical to say that the Rambam will say in one halachah that basar bechalav shehisri'ach is chayav, while basar bechalav shepagum (meat and milk that became flawed in taste) is patur? How could one Rambam, in one halachah, say hisri'ach chayav—that means the basar bechalav has become outside the category of ochel, it isn’t ochel, yet it’s chayav—and then say that in this case of pagum, pagum is mutar? Here he says mutar.
“Techalek (make a distinction).” Techalek. “One is the etzem (essence), and one is...” Chazak uvaruch (well done), that’s the obvious difference. One is about basar bechalav be'etzem (meat and milk itself), and one is about basar bechalav that went into a food. It’s the ta'am. Rav Chaim HaLevi on the Rambam uses that exact chiluk to make the proper sevara, to distinguish between the cases. There has to be a teretz (resolution) between basar bechalav be'etzem and the basar bechalav in this halachah, where we’re talking about the ta'am that came out. What’s the difference? He explains it beautifully.
If basar vechalav and pepper are together, you have pepper. That’s basar bechalav be'etzem. We’re talking about two things here: basar bechalav of etzem hisri'ach, and basar bechalav of ta'am. What’s the chiluk? Let’s go slowly. How do I know generally that the ta'am of an issur is an issur? You take that for granted. You need pesukim (verses) to teach us that: ta'am ke'ikkar (taste is like the substance). You ever hear that saying, ta'am ke'ikkar? What does it mean? The ta'am that comes out of an item is like the item. “Ah, chazak uvaruch. Mishrat—that’s the source. Mishrat anavim (soaked grapes), by the nazir (Nazirite).” What did it say about the nazir? The nazir isn’t allowed to have anavim (grapes). The Torah says he isn’t allowed to have mishrat anavim either. Mah zeh mishrat anavim? You soaked the grapes in water, and then you took the grapes out. What does the water have? The ta'am of the grapes. From there the Gemara learns ta'am ke'ikkar de'oraita (taste is like the substance by Torah law). I didn’t eat any grapes; I took them out. All I have here is water. But what’s in the water? The ta'am.
I need a Gemara for that, by the way. Without a Gemara, I’d say: Grapes, water. Flavor—where did the Torah say flavor? It’s so pashut (obvious) to you that the Torah said flavor? Maybe it’s all referring to neveilah. Now I take neveilah and cook it with string beans, then take the neveilah out. You’re right, the string beans have the taste of neveilah. Who said that’s assur? What do you mean, it has the taste of neveilah? The Torah said neveilah; it didn’t also say ta'am. So you need a pasuk (verse) from the Torah to tell me ta'am ke'ikkar. What does the Torah say? Mishrat. Mishrat anavim—a pasuk in the Torah.
“No, that’s a chiddush! You can’t come along and tell me it’s a sevara. If the item is assur, the ta'am should be assur too? Why? Maybe Hashem also said ta'am. Maybe, for whatever reason, Hashem prohibits only the item itself? Just because it comes out of the item? Meheicha teiti (from where would this come), that you’re going to tell me it’s the same? You don’t know that it’s the same, so you need proof. Ta'am ke'ikkar is a chiddush.” So far, so good?
“What if I put meat and cheese together and they do kivush (soaking), then separate them? I can’t eat the cheese?” That’s because you made basar bechalav. “But you only have ta'am in the cheese. You’re not eating them together.” No, so it’s assur. Same thing here. In hachi nami. Without that pasuk, you would think it’s mutar. All ta'am, you think it’s mutar? “Well, the ta'am comes from the actual item; that means there is something from the item in it.” So what? It’s not there. “Kol hayotzei min hatamei tamei” (Whatever comes from the impure is impure)? It’s not the neveilah. “The neveilah—” No, there is actually something there if you taste it; it mixed into the other items. “Now I took the neveilah out. Where is the neveilah? What’s left is a ta'am. You can’t see it, but it’s still there.” I agree with what you said, but it’s only called a ta'am. That’s if you make a chiluk between ta'am and issur. Yes, but the Torah comes and—No, I know the Torah; I’m saying, without that, I don’t know. I can’t tell you a sevara. Chiddush!
The Torah—it’s already a chok (decree) why the Torah prohibits neveilah. Okay, it prohibits neveilah. Dai mah she'astah Torah (enough of what the Torah did). Why would the Torah prohibit neveilah at all? That’s also a chok! So dai mah she'astah Torah. You want the ta'am of neveilah to be assur min haTorah? Yes: mishrat.
Anyway, good. So the chiddush of neveilah tells me what kind of ta'am is assur? Be'achilah (through eating)! Ta'am leshevach! But a ta'am that’s pagum isn’t going to be—Do you understand what achilah by neveilah teaches me? Achilah by neveilah teaches me that what you learned from mishrat—that ta'am ke'ikkar is assur min haTorah—is only a ta'am that people normally eat. A ta'am ra (bad taste) is not considered achilah. So far, so good?
Now watch what Rav Chaim HaLevi says. Chaim HaLevi writes: regarding basar bechalav be'etzem, where I have the piece of basar bechalav itself, where do I learn basar bechalav be'etzem from? Lo tevashel gedi bachalev imo (Do not cook a kid in its mother’s milk). Since the Torah there didn’t write leshon achilah (the language of eating), basar bechalav be'etzem doesn’t have the rules of achilah. Therefore, it’s going to be assur even if it’s saru'ach (spoiled), because the laws of achilah don’t apply.
However, once the basar bechalav falls into the devash (honey), what’s my source for the devash being assur? That source is already mishrat! It’s not basar bechalav. That is ta'am ke'ikkar, which I learned from mishrat. It’s not the etzem. And by mishrat I have a gezeirah shavah (verbal analogy); that’s about achilah. Therefore, basar bechalav can follow the laws of mishrat regarding ta'am ke'ikkar, the same way as neveilah. Your chiluk is obviously the chiluk, but he’s explaining the lamdut (analytical learning) behind it. He’s explaining the lamdut behind the chiluk.
Od pa'am (once again), and then we’ll go back to our masechet (tractate). Chaim Halevi is saying something incredible. “Rabotai, when I have a piece of basar bechalav here, and it’s masri'ach, it’s not even ra'ui la'achilat adam. What’s the source for this piece? Lo tevashel gedi bachalev imo. And what does lo tevashel mean? Don’t eat it.” “So why did it say lo tevashel? Say, ‘Don’t eat it.’” Because it wants to tell me that even if you eat it when it’s masri'ach, you’re chayav. That’s the chiddush of basar bechalav regarding the etzem piece.
Now I have a new case: basar bechalav fell into honey, and the basar gives a taste to the honey. What’s the source for that? Mishrat. That’s another story; that’s ta'am ke'ikkar. I don’t know why ta'am ke'ikkar; that’s not basar bechalav. That’s a ta'am ke'ikkar story. Ah, ta'am ke'ikkar? We already have a law of ta'am ke'ikkar: pagum doesn’t apply to ta'am ke'ikkar. You learn that from neveilah; you learn that it’s not achilah. Therefore, there’s no problem.
The Rambam can hold in one halachah that masri'ach is chayav, and then two minutes later tell me that pagum by basar bechalav can be mutar. The two things aren’t really connected. But again, lema'aseh (in practice), you don’t have many cases, because who’s eating basar bechalav that’s masri'ach? Still, it’s important to know this kelal: when something goes into devash, like basar bechalav, the Gemara says it goes into devash, and it’s masri'ach or pagum. Pagum is mutar.
We’re not going into the whole discussion, but the halachah says, for example, that if something pagum goes into shechar (beer)—a bug falls into the shechar, or something—the bug is assur, but it’s pagum; it spoils the shechar. There’s a whole discussion about these Scotches made in sherry-cask barrels. Sherry is wine. Lich'orah, when they put the Scotch in the cask, the sherry in the cask, which is wine—yein nesech (wine used for idolatry) or stam yeinam (ordinary non-Jewish wine)—goes into the whiskey, into the Scotch. Lich'orah, if you don’t have shishim (sixty parts) against it—or maybe you need more—is there batel b'shishim (nullified in sixty parts) for stam yeinam? It’s batel much more.
You have to know: maybe the wine in the walls is already pagum. How long was that wine in the barrel? They didn’t use the barrel for wine within 24 hours and then use it for Scotch. It must have been sitting in the barrel for a day or two, or a year or two. Halo barur (isn’t that clear)? They’re not putting it in to make it pagum. Halo barur. That’s the whole discussion there. You can see it in the teshuvot (responsa) of the Minchat Yitzchak, if you look in, I think, part 2 or 3, where he discusses whether there’s a tzad to be meikel (lenient) or not.
But clearly, with basar bechalav, if somebody asked you, “Rabbi, I have honey here. What’s the matter with this honey? Eat it! All honey is kosher.” Ah, not so simple. The guy dropped basar bechalav into the honey. “Ah, he dropped it into the honey—come on—and cooked it with it, whatever. It got me'orbav (mixed together).” What’s the answer you tell him? “Let the maid taste it.” If the maid says, “I don’t taste it; I just taste honey,” mutar. Or if the maid says, “Ugh, what happened to this honey?” mutar. “Mah zeh mutar? Who’s going to eat it?” Okay, fine, but maybe if you mix this honey with something else, it’ll be okay.
We’ll stop here. Baruch Hashem l'olam amen v'amen.