Make one birur (clarification) here. I want to make a birur. I also don’t want to stay here too long before the—yeah. So, rabotai (my teachers), we want to get some clarity here. There is a Rashba that we have to contend with.
Bottom line, the Rashba said that if you have a pot of basar (meat) that is ben yomo (used within a day), and you cooked vegetables in it, the vegetables weaken the meat. That is the sevara (reasoning) the Bach gives. Actually, it was the Tur, and the Pri Chadash brings this sevara: when you cook string beans, they weaken the ta’am (taste) of the basar. If we allow you lechatchilah (from the outset) to cook milk in the pot, why? Because that basar is not basar anymore; it is basar muklash.
Where did the Rashba get this from? You have to get to the source. The Beit Yosef brought his source from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah, ayin-vav. The case there is that Rav Amram asked a stirah (contradiction). Normally, it says that when you have spits and askala’ot (griddles), you need to do libun—that is how you kosher things that went in with fire: through fire, libun. But we find another statement: in the Beit HaMikdash (Temple), when they used the shepudin (spits) for the askala’ot of the korbanot (sacrifices), it was enough to do hag’alah (purging in boiling water). So, seemingly, there is a contradiction.
The Gemara answered that we can be lenient in the Beit HaMikdash. You do not need libun because kol yom mag’il lachaverta (Each day purges the next). Right? Gi’ul lachaverta. Beautiful. That is the Rashba’s question. The phrase is kol yom mag’il lachaverta: every day when you’re cooking it, you’re cooking it again. I’m using the same pot for the korbanot every single day. So every day I’m cooking it, and that is why I don’t need libun.
The Rashba says, “Hold on. What are you doing every day? I have a pot here with korbanot in it. Of course, if I leave this for two days, it is going to become notar—it’ll be two days later. But the Gemara says it never becomes notar because every single day I keep cooking it. It sounds like every day I keep being mag’il it, gi’ul lechavero. So there is no problem.”
The Rashba asks, “What do you mean there is no problem? Why is there no problem here? The Gemara said you need libun. Even if you want to say that cooking is like hag’alah, we had a question even about hag’alah: seemingly, you need libun. Let’s say kol yom gi’ul lechavero means hag’alah. We still have the same contradiction. What Rav Amram asked about hag’alah, he should ask about gi’ul lechavero. Gi’ul lechavero is not better than hag’alah. If he asked because you need libun, you should need libun here too. What difference does it make if I cook it every day? How does gi’ul lechavero answer the original contradiction? You need libun!”
No, gi’ul lechavero, you don’t need libun anymore. Why? Is gi’ul like hag’alah? Well, that is what you thought originally, that hag’alah—you make me hag’alah. Hag’alah, you also said you need libun! The Rashba explains a chidush (novel insight) in the Gemara itself. He says, “You’re right: cooking it every day is not hag’alah. It is certainly not hag’alah. Hag’alah has rules: you have to fill it to the top, let it overflow, and leave it there until there are bubbles. Bishul is a different category; it is not hag’alah. But it does something: it machlish”—it weakens the flavor.
So, let’s say there is a bela (absorbed flavor) of heiter (permitted substance) in this pot of shelamim, or whatever korban it is. It is still heiter; it has not become notar yet. “It will be two days later.” It has not become notar while it is being absorbed. I am allowed to eat a korban on the first day, before it becomes notar. On the first day, it was permitted. So when I cooked in the pot, what did I do? I was machlish it. I did not perform hag’alah, but I was machlish it. Therefore, when the flavor goes into subsequent pots, it will never have the status of notar. Why? Because I was machlish it.
That is why the Gemara said you do not need libun. When do you need libun? When something absorbed an isur (prohibition), and you need to get the isur out. But here, it is not an isur anymore. It was heiter that became weakened. “But two days later it will become notar?” No, it cannot become notar two days later, because I already weakened it by cooking it. That is how the Rashba understands the Gemara.
From here he learns a tremendous chidush. We do not have korbanot today; we have basar bechalav today. This is fantastic. You see from this Gemara that when you cook something in a pot, it machlish the bela. That is the principle: when you cook something in a pot, it machlish the bela. The first cooking is machlish the bela, just as the first cooking in the Beit HaMikdash was machlish it so that it would never subsequently become notar.
“But the Gemara said you need hag’alah!” Fine. Why don’t I need libun? Because it is already a ta’am kal—a weakened taste. For kodashim, we are going to need hag’alah because of this ta’am kal? No, it is a leniency, yes, the Gemara said it is a leniency. But what kind of leniency is this? It is a reality. You are cooking over and over again and weakening it. That is a reality, not a leniency. Why do I have to do libun on it?
Fine. If it is already a ta’am kal, hag’alah is enough for a ta’am kal. For a ta’am chamur, isur, I need libun. Why not just throw out the vessels every day and moram me’am overnight? Don’t do libun; throw it out! I’ll tell you better: throw it out! Who says? Throw it out! Why don’t you know?
Ela, the explanation is that the Gemara is saying you only have to do libun when there is an isur in it. Here, the isur that was absorbed became weakened. If it became weakened, you do not need libun; hag’alah is enough. So the Rashba learns that when you cook something in a pot that has absorbed flavor, it may not take that flavor out. Only hag’alah takes something out. But cooking weakens it. Therefore, he brings a practical implication: if you cook string beans in a meat pot, it is not meat anymore. You weakened the meat, and then you can cook milk in it afterward. You have no problem cooking milk in it afterward because it is not meat anymore.
So what are we talking about? I’m talking about basar. A kli cheres (earthenware vessel) pot makes no difference; there is no difference between cheres and other materials. Weakening makes no difference whether it is cheres or not. It weakens the flavor in cheres and in any kli. Whether the flavor comes out or not, what comes out will be kalush—it will be weakened. Even if it still comes out, it will still be weakened.
By the way, the Tur was talking about cheres too. Even cheres—what difference does it make? If it weakens the flavor, it weakens the flavor. Cheres is only a sevara that it keeps on releasing flavor. Right, it is going to keep releasing it. So what is it releasing? It is releasing weakened flavor. That’s it.
Rabotai, isn’t that a Tuvyah chata (Tuvyah sinned)? What are you teaching me here? That should be better than weakened flavor. But this bishul is not hag’alah. Hag’alah is better than bishul. What’s the switch? You’re machlish it; you have to stop at basar. Let hag’alah be machlish it, then! Let hag’alah be machlish it! Then why do you need to break it? Why break it?
We do not hold like the Rashba, by the way. We do not hold like the Rashba lema’aseh (in practice). “You hold like the Rashba? Mai chazit?” You don’t need it. That is by isur, by heiter—by heiter! But we do not follow the Rashba lema’aseh. We are learning the Rashba, but lema’aseh we do not hold like the Rashba.
Again, rabotai, I have basar of heiter in the pot. The Rashba said I cooked yerakot—string beans. What happened to the basar? Nechlash. Good so far? Can I cook milk in it afterward? Yes. Why? Because it is a ta’am nechlash in it. The Tur brings this Rashba, and the Tur is very happy with him. The Tur says, “Look at the Rashba. Beautiful.”
The Beit Yosef says, “Chacham Tur, a second ago you brought down the Ba’al HaIttur, who basically said the exact same thing. His mashal (example) was milk: instead of string beans, he said milk purges the pot and weakens the basar.” When it came to the Ittur, the Tur said, “Ah, tamia (astonishing)!” But when it came to the Rashba, he accepted it. The Beit Yosef is trying to find a distinction.
He says, “Maybe the Ba’al HaIttur was talking about a kli cheres. In a kli cheres, the basar keeps coming out. The Rashba, on the other hand, was talking about matechet (metal), so maybe we can leave him with respect to metal.” It is an easy answer, but the Beit Yosef says that bottom line, what we are talking about here is not hag’alah. You are not doing hag’alah; you are just cooking in the pot. So even if there is still basar in the metal, seemingly it is the same problem. You had a problem with a kli cheres without hag’alah; you will have a problem with metal without hag’alah. Stuff is still going to come out through the cooking. Even if you do hag’alah, metal is also polet (releases) flavor. So the same question you had on the Ittur, with a kli cheres and cooking, applies to metal as well.
The Beit Yosef does not like that chilluk (distinction). He gives the following answer, and this is what I came to clarify today. He says, “It is not mistaber—it is not reasonable—to say that chalav (milk), which is the culprit that makes basar bechalav, is going to make the pot kasher (kosher).” It sounds like the sevara of ein kateigor naaseh saneigor (A prosecutor does not become a defender). Dennis’ cup. Which means—string beans are a parve (neither meat nor dairy) item. Mah she’ein ken, chalav is the thing that makes basar bechalav. You want to tell me the chalav is going to weaken it?
What does this mean? Me’ikara dedina hu muttar (Fundamentally, it is permitted by law). If it works, it works. What do I care what I put in the pot? The sevara is that if I put shishim (sixty times the amount) of chalav in the pot, it is machlish it, just as string beans in a pot would be machlish it. To say it is not reasonable that chalav can do this because chalav makes basar bechalav—so what? If it works, it works. Ein kateigor naaseh saneigor does not apply here; this is a reality. When you cook something in a meat pot, does it machlish it or not? It does.
Unless you have some scientific fact that tells me vegetables do a better job of haklashah (weakening) than chalav, who told you? Who told you? Obviously, the Ittur did not think that. The Ittur did not think that. So what is the Beit Yosef’s logic for making a chilluk between chalav and yerakot?
Rabotai, now we go back to what we said yesterday. I want to clarify what we said yesterday. When I was learning today with the Beit Yosef, I clarified it a little better than we did yesterday. Let’s review the Ba’al HaIttur for the tenth time. He had basar in the pot, and I cooked chalav with shishim. Beautiful. We said, “There should be no problem with this pot. Cook whatever you want in there, because the basar that went into the chalav was nullified.”
Of course, the question is that although you mevatel (nullifies) the basar into the chalav, that chalav went into the walls. The chalav that goes into the walls seemingly makes basar bechalav. What did we answer yesterday? Rabbi Akiva Eiger—no, for basar bechalav to happen, it has to go both ways. Hagahot R’ak’a—that is the Ramban, by the way. According to the Beit Yosef, we could say that he does not agree with that Ramban. He holds like the other shittot (approaches), which say that basar bechalav can be created in one direction.
If you say that, that is why chalav is worse. Ein hachi nami, chalav can ultimately weaken it. It is true that chalav will ultimately weaken it, but when you put the first chalav in, what happens? You make basar bechalav in the pot. Therefore, the Beit Yosef holds that basar bechalav can happen in one direction. Mah she’ein ken, yerakot do not make basar bechalav. The basar comes out and becomes weakened, so cook whatever you want in there. That is the sevara.
It is not so much ein kateigor naaseh saneigor. The sevara is that when it is chalav, you are making basar bechalav. If you look at the Pri Megadim on the Shulchan Aruch, it seems to say that yerakot are permitted, but “aval chalav, harei naasit issur (it has become prohibited).” Wait, what do you mean, it became prohibited? You had shishim. What do you mean, you had shishim, and ve’eich naasit issur (and how did it become prohibited)? Ela, it means it became prohibited in the walls.
So we have a clear explanation of the Rashba, and of why the Tur did not ask on the Rashba: yerakot are different from chalav. Was there shishim? How, then? There was still shishim against the wall? And therefore? The chalav goes in there. The chalav goes into the walls. Wait, the basar isn’t—The chalav going in is not for afterward. What do you mean? What do you need shishim in the chalav for? I know. But now that it became weakened—if it became weakened, the basar—But the first chalav, the first chalav that goes into this—It gets weaker and weaker.
So why do string beans and then milk work? It is not meat anymore, and I did not make basar bechalav when I put string beans in it. Stop right there. So then it makes a difference? It makes a difference. It did not make basar bechalav. Right, but chalav would be nechlash the basar. I agree that even according to the Beit Yosef, the chalav will be nechlash the basar. But it is going to make basar bechalav first. That’s it—stop right there. It is forbidden to make basar bechalav! As it goes in? Of course, it is absorbed. It goes in and comes out. Unless you pour it out right away. Let’s say you did not pour it out right away, as was likely in the case we discussed. You did not pour it out right away. It is a cycle. At the boiling point it will—It goes back in. If you leave it boiling, and then start lowering the heat, it goes back in. It goes in before it’s nechlash? Wait, wait, wait!
This is what I wanted to make clear from yesterday. When you cook it the first time, you need shishim in the milk. Why? Just the milk, because the basar is going into the milk, correct? “It became weakened; it became weakened.” It is not weakened yet. That comes after this process. I agree with you. Therefore, when that chalav went into the basar, there was a problem.
“Wait, the bitul (nullification) was in the chalav, not the weakening?” Exactly. The bitul was in the chalav, not the weakening. This next chalav is weakened; the first one is not nechlash, it is bitul. So when this chalav went into the walls of the pot, did you have shishim against it? You didn’t. Therefore, you are making basar bechalav. Yesterday we thought that basar bechalav had to go both ways. But the Beit Yosef says you do not need both ways; even one way is a problem. That is why he makes a chilluk with yerakot.
“But the question we had was, according to the Rashba, why is the basar good after string beans?” That is not a question. He explained why it is good: it is nechlash. Our question is why chalav is not the same. The answer is that chalav made basar bechalav. That’s right: chalav makes basar bechalav, and yerakot do not. When you put yerakot into a basar pot, did any basar bechalav happen there? No.
Now I understand the question clearly. The question was that the Beit Yosef said, “Only yerakot do this, not chalav.” Why? Because it is not mistaber that chalav should do this. Why not? It is a reality. If you are putting something in a pot and cooking it, and it weakens what is inside, mai yerakot mai chalav? I should be able to cook whatever I want afterward. Exactly. If it works both ways, you should be able to do what you want afterward. And if the Beit Yosef and the Rashba—or the Tur—had no problem with the Rashba, why do you have a problem with the Ba’al HaTur?
The answer we are explaining is that in the Rashba, you did not make basar bechalav when you cooked the original string beans. Mah she’ein ken, when you cooked the original chalav with shishim, you made basar bechalav in the walls. Stop right there.
Now I want to cook the next thing. What did you make? Chatichah na’asit (the piece becomes)—na’asit issur (becomes prohibited)! What is it? Na’asit issur! I’m saying it made the flavor weakened, so now you have chalav—You’re saying it is weakened basar bechalav. No, in the walls it is—Before it became weakened, it became prohibited. At that time it is a problem. But after it becomes weakened, now I want to go to the next cooking—It is not weakened, honey. It is not weakened. So when you cook something next—It is the second one! I want to know now: it became prohibited in the walls. Am I allowed to cook something with pig in the walls? No, but on the second cooking—No, it doesn’t matter. Once it is prohibited, it is prohibited, honey. Nechlash (weakened) only applies to heiter.
“Nechlash doesn’t work on isur?” Nechlash is only said by heiter, not by isur. “But we were just—” You have to know this. It’s a very good point; I have to understand that. I’ll give it to you. You are allowed to become weakened only by heiter? Nechlash was only said by permitted things.
By the way, I have a simple question for you. I cook pig in a pot, pig in a pot, ben yomo. Now I cook string beans in it. Do I say, “Oh, it became weakened. Now, the next time, I can cook whatever I want”? No, chas veshalom! Maybe? Maybe klal ucheklal (absolutely not). What do you mean, maybe? For sure not! You do not say nechlash by isur.
But here, nothing became prohibited yet. There is basar in the pot. “Rabbi, nechlash doesn’t allow a match of milk and meat. You’re doing the same thing.” Chazak uvaruch! It stops the match, exactly. But if it is nechlash of chazir (pig), there is no chazir—There is no kelal by isur. I didn’t understand. That’s why—What if you have a piece of—So now it is a smaller piece of chicken, but it is still thick. What do I care whether it is small or big? It is pig, it is pig, and it became weakened. What became weakened?
So you’re going to tell me, “Beautiful, I have a way to kosher a pot. Don’t do hag’alah anymore; always cook string beans. Put them in the pot, and it becomes weakened!” Wait. In all these cases we have been discussing for the past two days, nothing ever became an isur. In the case we discussed yesterday, there was basar in a pot. Nothing became prohibited. What did the chalav do? It weakened basar that was heiter. Heiter! Now you are saying string beans do the same thing. I’m asking you: if string beans do it, chalav should do it too.
No. When it came to chalav, the Tur said, “Ah, bar minan!” When it came to string beans, the Tur said, mideha shatik lei mideha shatik lei modeh lei (Since he is silent, he concedes). So I am explaining what the Beit Yosef means. The Beit Yosef says, “No, it is not reasonable that the chalav did not do it.” Why not? It is a reality. If string beans can be machlish, chalav can be machlish. The explanation is that you’re right: it is machlish, which means ultimately both can be machlish. But there is a problem. In the first cooking of this chalav, although you may have nullified the basar that went into the chalav, the chalav that went into the pot made basar bechalav. You made an isur. There is no sevara of weakening there, because it is an isur.
“But the second vegetable is taking away the meat flavor.” Why? What did it do? The meat went into the vegetables, and they fought that way. Anyone with that? And the vegetables went into the meat. Okay, beautiful. What else? “Ein sevara de’ein shear hate’amim.” Okay, they did that thing. Now, honey, the second cooking: if it became weakened, do whatever you want, because it became weakened. That was heiter. You can say that. That’s exactly it.
Is that always when it is eino ben yomo, or even ben yomo? Even ben yomo. That is the chidush. Why is that a big chidush? Because now, if you are mevashel (cooks), when Rabbeinu Peretz said you can’t be mevashel after basar or chalav, right? The Acharonim (later authorities) understand that since the basar is pagum (degraded in taste), and then you put chalav in, why can’t you be mevashel chalav? Just because, let’s say, it was an oved kochavim (idolater), I can cook chalav because we do not hold that noten ta’am lifgam mutar lechatchilah (A degraded flavor is permitted initially). But let’s say you are mevashel chalav: the Acharonim understand that is okay.
When basar vechalav became an isur, now the chalav is—The chalav should be—It is chalav that is basar vechalav, so you have said afilu bedi’avad assur (Even after the fact, it is forbidden). Right, absolutely. Once it becomes an isur, there is no more nechlash, no more heiter. One hundred percent. It is not a case of—That’s right, it is not ain no ben yomo anymore. Ben yomo is a chidush, do you know that? Even though the basar was already not stam (ordinary), still, since the chalav is—You’re right, but you did it again. Even though it was nifgam (degraded) then, I reheated it. The chalav is not pagum, so since the chalav is not pagum, the basar makes it basar vechalav again. Yeah, it is always going to be like that.
The whole nekudah (point) of Rabbi Akiva Eiger—the Ittur is not Rabbi Akiva Eiger. Chazak! All this hinges on Rabbi Akiva Eiger. When you come back to the Rashba and the Ittur, or the Tur, in my peirush (explanation)—Rabotai, just calm down. The point is, don’t get confused. We spend so much time on these shittot. I know you are going to say, “You’re spending so much time, and the halachah (Jewish law) is not like any of these shittot.”
We do not hold like the Ittur, and we do not hold like the Rashba. Bottom line, we hold that all the poskim (halachic decisors)—and when you cook yerakot, the Beit Yosef asked three questions on the Rashba from different places, if you saw them. The point is, he rejected it flatly. Therefore, lema’aseh, when you have a basar pot, I don’t care if you cooked something in between, whether you cooked chalav certainly or even yerakot: we do not say it is nechlash. The basar is still considered basar. Therefore, if it is ben yomo and you cooked chalav in it, it will be basar bechalav. If it is pagum, you are still not allowed to cook basar in it, because you are not allowed to cook pagum lechatchilah; that is only bedi’avad. So scratch these things we mentioned.
Now we ask a yes halachah lema’aseh question. It’s about time we got to some halachah lema’aseh. I have a basar pot, a besari pot. I want to make hag’alah on it to turn it into a chalavi pot. Now I eat chalavi in it. After I eat chalavi in it, I want to make hag’alah to turn it back into a besari pot. Am I allowed to have just one set of dishes—not glass, but one set of metal dishes that are bole’a (absorbs)—and every night make hag’alah to switch them from meat to dairy and from dairy to meat? Or do I need two sets of dishes, one meat and one dairy?
Of course, nobody will argue with me that yoter tov—it is better—to have three sets of dishes, ten sets of dishes. But we are talking about the perfect world where I want to know the strict halachah. Can I just keep making hag’alah back and forth?
Chacham Ovadiah alav hashalom actually has this question in Yabi’a Omer, chelek gimmel (volume three), in Yoreh De’ah, siman dalet (section four): Nish’alti im mutar lehag’il keli basar lehakhshiran lehishtamesh bahem bema’achalei chalav, vekhen lehefech, lehakhshir keli chalav levasar (I was asked whether one may purge a meat vessel for dairy use, and vice versa). That is a serious question. You mean a rabbi is going to tell me that if I have a keli basar, I can’t make hag’alah on it anymore? That’s it? I have to have meat forever, forever meat? Maybe there is a rabbi who says that. So Chacham Ovadiah asks: what do we hold?
He quotes the Magen Avraham, in siman tav-kuf-tet (509), se’if katan (subsection) yod-alef (eleven), vezeh leshono (and this is his wording): “Umikan mashma shemutar bechol lehag’il keli chalav leechol bo basar o ipcha, veha’olam nohagim issur badavar.” The Magen Avraham says that min hadin (according to the law), it should be mutar (permitted), but the olam (people) customarily prohibit it.
So what is the reason? He quotes the Maharam Yafeh: hata’am laminhag (reason for the custom), she’im ya’aseh khen, le’olam lo yihyeh lo ella keli echad. If you allow a person to do this, he will end up with only one set of dishes. Veyag’ilenu kol pa’am sheyishtamesh bo—he’ll make hag’alah every time he uses it. What is the problem? Vezeh asur dilma atei lemit’ei (Lest one come to err).
“The same as glass.” No, glass is always mutar. What’s glass? Glass is not bole’a (absorbs). Two thousand percent. Not only that, for Pesach (Passover) too: one set for the whole year, including Pesach. But that is glass. We are not talking about glass; we are talking about metal. Glass does not absorb. Look at a glass: is anything in the glass? It is clear. Not colored glass, but Chacham Ovadiah says glass, Pyrex, Duralex, all that stuff considered clear glass, does not absorb. I’m not going into that. I’m talking about now.
By the way, tavo me’erah to the guy who has one set of glass dishes! Just because I said it is mutar does not mean you should go and, as Rabbi Mansour said, throw out all your they have one set. Of course not! Tavo me’erah! What, you have one set of dishes now? Don’t be a wise guy. The custom—You’re right: if you are in a hotel and they give you one set of glass dishes, you know the halachah. You can switch from chametz (leavened food) to matzah (unleavened bread), from basar to chalav. But not for your house. Al titosh torat imecha (Do not forsake your mother’s teaching).
Anybody going to their mother’s house and seeing that you have two dishes? Don’t recreate the wheel. The minhag (custom) today in bnei Torah (Torah scholars) homes is that we have two sets of dishes. A guy gets married, the girl comes in and buys dishes, and he has one set of glass dishes. “What’s this? We only have one set.” You’re going to go to the rabbi right away, Masechet Gittin? What do you mean, one set of dishes? Who taught you this?
“I’m talking about a casserole dish, like a Pyrex, one of those big Pyrex dishes. Do you have a meat one and a dairy one?” A Pyrex that we do not use that often—maybe we could be lenient like that. But one set of dishes for everything? Okay. Anyway, you veered me off. I veered myself off because I wanted to let you know we are talking about metal.
So what is the problem? I’m going to forget where I’m holding. I’m going to make hag’alah every night, and then I’ll ask, “Now where are we holding? It’s meat, right?” No, I’m not talking about that. I’m worried about the mistake: shema yit’eh. Since he is switching back and forth, he will not know what the utensil is. He will think it is meat when really it is dairy. He will put the opposite item in it and come to isur. So they say, don’t have one set. If you keep switching, you may make a mistake and use it without hag’alah. If you do hag’alah, that solves it, but the person won’t do hag’alah. He’ll say, “Where are we holding now? It’s meat, right? Ya’ani, it’s meat. Okay.” He doesn’t have an alarm, an app to tell him what it is. He’ll think it is meat and put meat in it, when meanwhile it was dairy.
Chacham Ovadiah says, “Vezeh asur demitzad pilpul meiti bechinam, leika bechilukan.” Then he says, “Vechatav alav haSha'ar HaMelech, venir’eh dehehsmit mineih mah shekatav haSemak.” Who is that? The Levush? Who’s who’s she? The Magen Avraham is quoting haRav miPozna (the rabbi from Poznań), Maharam. What you had before is that the Magen Avraham is being machmir.
Then he brings down the Semak, which says: dehaga’alat kelim davka bichli she’eino ben yomo (Purging vessels applies specifically when the vessel is not ben yomo). Aval kol zman shehakeli ben yomo asur lehag’ilo (But while the vessel is ben yomo, it is forbidden to purge it). The poskim say—and we hold—that when you do hag’alah on a keli, you are not supposed to do it if it is ben yomo. Why? If it is ben yomo, the isur will go into the water, and then the water will go back into the pot, and everything is asur. You don’t have shishim in the water. So we hold that when you do hag’alah on a keli, it has to be eino ben yomo (not used within a day).
“Is that only in its own pot, or even if it’s in another pot? Meaning you dip it into a bigger pot. If there is shishim?” If you have shishim, it is all right, if the pot is big enough. “But the inside is still getting it back.” No, the flavor inside will dilute into the water of the bigger pot. You have to know whether we say noten ta’am bar noten ta’am (a flavor derived from another flavor) in your case. But the point is, in the same pot, that is the discussion. You have to see whether they make a hidur (stringency) in your case. Bedi’avad (after the fact), for sure it will be okay.
Nonetheless, we see that the Semak says you used to dip kelim (vessels) that were einam benei yoman (not used within a day). What is a case of eino ben yomo? A regular meat pot that was eino ben yomo. You see that you can dip it. Chacham Ovadiah writes, “Aval kol zman shehakeli ben yomo asur. Umihu davka behag’alah, aval be—mutar.” Fine. “Harei shekatav behedya dechli shel basar she’eino ben yomo mutar lehag’ilo levashel bo chalav, kederech shemutar lehag’il kelim ha’asurim (prohibited vessels) she’einam ben yomo.”
The Semak wrote clearly that just as we allow you to do hag’alah on kelim of isur that are eino ben yomo, you are allowed to do hag’alah on a keli basar that is eino ben yomo as well. They did not make a difference, and they did not make a gezeirah (rabbinic safeguard), eino ben yomo atu ben yomo. Why not say, “If I let you do this with a basar pot that is eino ben yomo, you might do it when it is ben yomo”? But it is not isur. You know how far-fetched a gezeirah that is?
By the way, what would the law be if I had a basar pot that was ben yomo and I did hag’alah on it? Min hadin, it should be mutar. Why? Because it is nat bar nat—one transfer in the pot, one in the water—and there is heiter in the walls. The heiter went into the water, which is the second transfer, and that went back into the pot. Even if it was ben yomo, it should be mutar. So you want to tell me we are going to make a gezeirah, eino ben yomo atu ben yomo, when even an eino ben yomo would be okay?
Some poskim wanted to say that the reason it is asur to dip a basar pot that is eino ben yomo is that you might do it when it is ben yomo. Chacham Ovadiah said, “I don’t understand that. What could the problem be? Even if it is ben yomo, bedi’avad it will be okay because it is nat bar nat—one in the pot, one in the water—and nothing is isur yet.”
The Sha’ar HaMelech gives a reason for the matter, saying that we make a gezeirah: she’eino ben yomo atu ben yomo. Lefi aniyut da’ati (in my humble opinion), there is a mistake in the text. haBach asks about the Tur’s words in anaf (branch) zeh: why do we prohibit doing hag’alah on a keli basar that is ben yomo? Why should it be prohibited? It is nat bar nat.
The Bach says, “You know why? Because if I let you do it with a basar pot, you might do it with a pot of isur.” You know what he said? An acharon (later authority) gozer (decrees) that a basar pot that is ben yomo is prohibited because of a pot of isur. Now, what do these rabbis want to say? They want to decree that a basar pot that is eino ben yomo is prohibited because of a basar pot that is ben yomo, which is prohibited because of a pot of isur. Chacham Ovadiah says, “Hey, too much! Too much!” Even a ben yomo of basar should be mutar according to halachah. The ben yomo is only asur because of a ben yomo of isur. Now you want to prohibit an eino ben yomo because of a ben yomo that is only prohibited for another reason?
Chacham Ovadiah says: “Vetiretz kasavar dilechatchilah asur bezeh afilu mibasar lechalav gezerah atu kli shel isur.” The Gemara took it out. Lefi zeh, me’ayin haraglayim (what is the basis) ligzor (to decree) bichli basar she’eino ben yomo atu ben yomo, ve’afilu ben yomo atzmo mutar bedi’avad miha (at least)? Shall we or shall we not?
Chacham Ovadiah comes along and gives us the famous principle, based on the Chida: ein lanu ligzor gezerot mida’atenu acharei chatimat haTalmud (We may not make decrees on our own in matters unmentioned in the Talmud). After the Talmud has been completed, unless there is a consensus of all the Chachmei Yisrael (Sages of Israel)—which you will never have—you cannot start making new gezerot that never existed.
The classic example he brings is Shabbat. You are not allowed to read le’or haner (by the light of a lamp). Why? Shema yateh (lest he adjust the lamp). Now I don’t have an oil lamp; I have a light bulb. Is it permissible to read by a light bulb? Well, make a gezeirah: shema yateh. Maybe I’ll turn the light up, especially if there is a dimmer. Maybe I’ll turn it, or maybe there are two lights and I’ll turn on another switch, or maybe there is a bulb that is not in and I’ll put it in. Make a gezeirah! Today, that is what we have.
Chacham Ovadiah says the gezeirah was said where it was said. It was said about a ner (lamp), shema yateh. It did not say that you might add more oil, or put it out, or bring another ner. It said what it said. Even though it may seem reasonable to medameh (compare) a light bulb to a lamp, Chacham Ovadiah says, lema’aseh, they asked him this question. Chacham Mansour Ben Shimon, alav hashalom, asked him in Yabi’a Omer, chelek alef, siman tet-zayin (section sixteen): “Lichvod yedidi haRav Mansour Ben Shimon, rosh Ra”m biyshivat Porat Yosef (To my esteemed friend Rabbi Mansour Ben Shimon, head and teacher at Porat Yosef Yeshiva), odot mah shedarash lehasig lefanai asher katavti lehashiv lesho’alai bedin keri’ah le’or ner hachashmal beleil Shabbat (regarding reading by electric light on Shabbat night), hineni la’anot (I am ready to answer).”
He says, “Hineh yadu’a hadavar: what our rabbis, the rishonim ve’achronim (earlier and later authorities), decided is that we do not make gezerot on our own. Sheheich yachlu lechadesh gezerah achar shenistaymah haShas? How could they make a new decree after the Talmud was completed?” He brings the Chida in Chayim Sha’al.
He continues: “Since the decree of Chazal that one should not read by the light of a lamp, lest he adjust it, was about a petilah (wick) with oil, it does not apply to electric light, where that concern does not apply at all. If we were to worry about shema yechabeh beyadayim (lest he extinguish it by hand) after finishing his study, zo gezerah chadashah (that would be a new decree)! Who made that decree? The Gemara never decreed that on the way out he might put out the candle. Now you want to make a new decree today? You have no right. Chazal did not worry about this, and we have already written that we may not make decrees on our own.”
All the more so, he says, there is no reason to prohibit using an electric lamp because someone might lower it and bring it closer to you. Maybe it is a portable lamp, and you want to make a gezeirah that you cannot read by it on Shabbat because you might pick it up and bring it closer to you. At worst, that is muktzeh (set aside on Shabbat), so we are not going to make a gezeirah on a gezeirah that is muktzeh. But even aside from that, the rabbis never worried about it. In the case of lo yikra le’or haner, the gezeirah was not that I might pick up the ner and bring it toward me; it was shema yateh. You want to make new gezerot? As I’ve heard, you do not have the right to start making new gezerot.
Chacham Ovadiah brings another example. He brings the Pri Chadash, who says the same thing: ein lanu ligzor gezerot. The case he brings is a medochah (mortar), like a meat grinder. You have a medochah shel basar, she’asur ladoch bah besamim vetavlin (in which it is forbidden to grind spices and seasonings). The Taz said that in a meat grinder you are not allowed to grind parve spices, even if you want to eat them with basar. Why? Kedei le’ochlam im basar (in order to eat them with meat). It is a meat grinder, you grind spices, and you eat the spices with meat—but you cannot do it because of a gezerah shema yavo le’ochlam bechalav (a decree lest one come to eat them with milk).
By the way, you see the Chachamim make similar gezerot about, for example, dairy bread. The Rambam Rabbis did not want you to make bread dairy because they were worried you might eat the dairy bread with meat. They made that safeguard, but they did not make a gezeirah about the medochah. The Taz came along and said, “No, the medochah is the same thing.” The Pri Chadash says, ein lanu ligzor gezerot mida’atenu bedavar shelo nizkar baTalmud (We may not make decrees on our own in matters unmentioned in the Talmud).
He says, “Ve’im banu lachush livsamim (And if we were to be concerned about spices), af anu nachush lekelim vene’esor lehag’il keli meyuchad levasar la’asoto shel chalav (we would also prohibit purging a meat vessel to make it dairy).” That is the example he brings. The Pri Chadash says: if you want to start making new gezerot, we should forbid turning a basar keli into a chalav keli. He says, “Sheharei ein heker bikli (there is no identifying mark on the vessel). You do not know what the keli is. You may make a mistake. Yesh lachush pen yevashel bo chalav, yishkach viyvashel bo basar (one should worry he may cook milk in it, forget, and cook meat in it).” You will forget which one you are holding, kemo shenahag bah ad atah, ela vadai delo chaishinan (as he used it until now; rather, certainly we are not concerned). That is the example the Pri Chadash brings.
Therefore, Chacham Ovadiah concludes lema’aseh that although Ashkenazim are machmir, they do not change their kelim, except bederech arai (on an occasional basis), once a year before Pesach. We are not going to make a gezeirah once a year to change kelim. Whatever “occasional” means for them. But for us, for Sefaradim, it would be permissible to switch from basar to chalav and from chalav to basar.
Don’t tell me, “A gezeirah!” We are not going to make a gezeirah, eino ben yomo atu ben yomo, and we are not going to make a gezeirah shema yit’eh, that you won’t know what you are holding.
“Keep—if it’s an eino ben yomo, what do you need to do hag’alah for anyway? It’s already—” I don’t want—I don’t want to be meat. “If you pass the time anyway—” But I can’t cook milk in a pagum pot lechatchilah. If it is after 24 hours, why not? Where’s the kollel? What are you talking about, Ronnie? What are they talking about, Ronnie? Ask me a question, Ronnie. Answer the question.
“I have a meat pot that is eino ben yomo. Lechatchilah, can I cook milk in it?” Only because of a gezeirah, though, no? So the answer is asur? Yeah. Okay, so you answer asur. I thought you were saying it was mutar. You’re saying it is asur? No, but I don’t think I have a pot that is basar. I have a basar pot that is pagum. Am I allowed to cook milk in it? No. Why not? Oh, pagum is mutar, yeah. Am I allowed to cook in it? Why not? No, no, no. The food that I cooked in it is mutar, but I am not allowed to cook in it. You know that. Here, you got confused. You know that, Ronnie. When you go home to lunch today, are you going to take a meat pot that is pagum and cook pizza in it? No. Why not? It is pagum. You’re saying it is only about the food. Chazak uvaruch! You knew that. You got confused; you knew that.
Baruch le’olam amen ve’amen. Rabotai, tomorrow we will do pot covers. Pot covers, that's the Rema. Tomorrow we start with the Rema, pot covers. All right, beautiful.