All right, rabotai (gentlemen), this is clearly the most complicated subject we have taken on. Over the past seven or eight days, we have had relatively easy sugyot (discussion) in the Gemara, the Shulchan Aruch, ha-Shach, and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and a couple of chakirot (investigation). Nothing was so intricate that you could get confused and lose your bearings. Clearly, this sugya here is complicated. Any sugya that involves chazarot (review) has an initial way of learning it, and then a review. You have to know what they said originally, what the sevarot (reasoning) were initially, and what the review was. Also, any sugya that involves girsa'ot (textual version) becomes complicated.
You must have seen that on kuf tet zayin amud bet, there is a parenthesis right before the Mishnah. See the parenthetical? That already tells me there are different girsa'ot here. It is in parentheses. Where did that line come from? Somebody must have had it. That adds to the complications. The third thing that makes this sugya complicated is that most Americans are not familiar with the cheese-making process. So we have a handicap when it comes to metzi'ut (reality). The metzi'ut is the way you make cheese. Those are the challenges of the sugya: the metzi'ut, the chazarot, and the girsa'ot. We have to go through each of these issues, solve them, and make the sugya easy.
It does not help that we are starting this on a Sunday, when we have to come back from Shabbat and start to me'ayen into a heavy, heavy sugya. All those factors create the perfect storm, but be'ezrat Hashem, we will try to alleviate all these issues.
The easiest issue to alleviate is the metzi'ut. There are two ways to make cheese. You take the keivah, the stomach. The meat of the stomach is very acidic because it needs enzymes to digest the food. One way was to cut a piece from the keivah. That is called the or of the keivah: the flesh of the keivah. They would drop it into milk, and abracadabra, it would congeal. Before you knew it, you had cheese.
Therefore, there is no argument about what I am going to tell you now: if I have an animal that is a neveilah, perush (meaning), it was not slaughtered correctly, the keivah is a neveilah; it is a piece of meat from that animal. If I cut a piece from that keivah and drop it into milk, I am making cheese with a neveilah. The Mishnah says, whether kodem chazarah or achar chazarah, ma'amid (coagulate) gevinah be'or keivat neveilah asurah (forbidden). Zehu zeh, finished. We will see that in halachah (Jewish law), being ma'amid in or.
By the way, the Mishnah says, “Keivat oved kochavim, etc., ha-ma'amid be'or shel keivah.” The Bach takes out the word kesherah. Or keivah. So you can already have issues. Perhaps there is a ta'am (taste) of the basar (meat) that goes into the cheese, but we are not discussing that today. With or, it is a problem. We are not discussing that today. We are discussing another way of making cheese.
Another way of making cheese was to use the milk that was in the keivah. The keivah sometimes has milk in it. That milk also has a lot of acid in it because it is sitting in the keivah, and therefore it can somehow ferment or congeal the cheese. What would they do? They would take regular milk, combine it with this milk from the keivah, and abracadabra, they would have what is called cheese. Very nice.
The Mishnah clearly says, in its first line, that if you take a keivat neveilah—the keivah came from a neveilah—and make cheese inside that keivah using the milk inside it, the Mishnah says unequivocally, asurah. Right or wrong? Read the Mishnah: “Keivat oved kochavim”—you could leave oved kochavim—“shel neveilah, harei zo asurah.” Perush, explain that Mishnah, boys. “Kevat neveilah, perusho, ani oseh gevinah im hachalav shebetoch hakevah neveilah.” Havantem? Asurah! Why asurah? I have to guess; I do not have a perush on this. I guess that because the keivah is a neveilah, the milk inside it also has the status of neveilah. Pashut, yes? Chazak! That is the Mishnah.
The Gemara comes along and says, “Wait, what are you talking about? We have a rabbi called Shmuel.” Turn the page. What did Shmuel say? “Why can’t you eat the cheese of the goyim (non-Jews)? Lamah asurah gevinot shel nochrim?” He said, “You know why? Because they make their cheese with the or of the keivah.” No problem. So the Gemara makes a diyuk (inference): “Ah, the or! But the keivah itself, the milk inside, is no problem.” But the Mishnah says it is a problem. Shmuel cannot argue with a Mishnah. Our Mishnah says, “Or keivat neveilah asurah.” Not or; “keivat neveilah asurah.” Shmuel, why can’t I eat cheese of the goyim? “Because they use or keivah.” Mashma (it implies) that the keivah itself is no problem. So the Gemara says, “Ah, there was a chazarah here: kan kodem chazarah, kan le'achar chazarah.”
To appreciate the chazarah we are talking about, you need to know a Gemara in Avodah Zarah, daf kaf-tet. Rashi quotes it, if you saw it. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah kaf-tet has the following exchange. Some rabbis were walking. One rabbi asked his colleague, “Why is it asur to eat cheese of the goyim?” Fair question. He answered, “Because they put the milk they use to make the cheese in keivat neveilah.” The rabbi replied, “Ah! So you are telling me that what is in the keivah of a neveilah is neveilah? That cannot be, because we have another law: if you have a korban olah (burnt offering), an olah is worse than a neveilah; it is asur bahana'ah (benefit). The halachah says that if you have a kohen (priest) who is strong-minded, strong-willed, or has no taste buds, he could take the keivah of the olah and slurp the milk inside it. Shorfah: he can drink the milk, like a coconut, that is in the keivah. What do you mean? If you are telling me that the milk in a neveilah is neveilah, then the milk in the olah is asur bahana'ah (benefit)! How could the kohen slurp it?”
“Ela (rather), you know what the explanation is? You understood it wrong. Really, the milk in the olah is not part of the olah. Therefore, that milk is not asur bahana'ah. It is not asur bahana'ah; it is kanus betocho. It is sitting in it, but it is separate.” “Ah, it is separate? What do you mean, separate?” It is separate. There is the keivah and the milk inside it, two separate items. The keivah is asur bahana'ah, and the milk is not. Let the kohen drink it. “Ah, if that is the case, I have a chiddush (new insight): the milk in a neveilah is separate. The keivah is neveilah. That milk? That milk is kasher. Why? It is sitting in the keivah of a neveilah, but it is separate.”
So now we go back to the Gemara. Our Mishnah, which said “ha-ma'amid bekeivat neveilah asurah,” is kodem chazarah, when we thought that whatever is in the neveilah is neveilah. But achar chazarah, after the Gemara in Avodah Zarah kaf-tet, I learned that no, what is in the keivah is separate. It is kanus, but it is separate. Therefore, at this point, chakameinu (our sages), can I be ma'amid gevinot in a keivat neveilah? Yes. Why? Because it is not part of the neveilah. Just as the milk in an olah is not part of the olah, so the kohen can drink it. Zehu zeh, that is the chazarah bachazarah.
I will continue with our Mishnah. Rabotai, I am giving this to you on what is called a platter of silver, because it is a complicated Gemara. I am breaking it down as easily as I know how, just so you get the sugya down pat. I am sure that if you spent another few hours on it with all your kochot, you would have reached the same conclusions. But since we have such a short time, we have to review it together.
The Gemara says, okay, let us continue reading our Mishnah. The Mishnah says you have a kesheirah, meaning a kosher animal, sheyankah min hatereifah (non-kosher animal). It is yonek from a tereifah, so what does it have in the stomach? Tereifah milk. You make cheese with that tereifah milk, and the Mishnah’s ruling is asurah. I understand: it is tereifah milk. Next case in the Mishnah: “Tereifah sheyankah min hakesheirah.” “Tereifah sheyankah min hakesheirah”—kesheirah! Therefore, if I make cheese, no problem. That is the Mishnah. And the Mishnah says why? “Mipnei shehu kanus (because it is contained).” It is kanus betocho. Even though the kesheirah is sitting in a tereifah, it is kanus. It is like it is in a glass. It does not become tereifah just because it is sitting in a tereifah; it is kanus betocho. Hevantem? Very nice.
If you remember, the Gemara had a question on this case. According to the seifa (latter part) of the Mishnah, kesheirah in a tereifah is okay. That means you have or, or you have a keivat tereifah, and it is okay. “Ai, you told me in the beginning of the Mishnah that keivat neveilah is problematic. And seemingly, tereifah should be worse, because a neveilah is ma'us (disgusting), and I am not going to come to eat it, and still they told me it is asurah. A tereifah is not ma'us; I did shechitah (ritual slaughter) on it, so certainly if you say neveilah, we should also say tereifah!” That is the Gemara’s question. You have a stirah (contradiction). How can you tell me “keivat neveilah asurah” and then tell me “keivat tereifah muteret”?
The Gemara answers again: “Kan kodem chazarah, kan le'achar chazarah.” You are right. After the chazarah, the kesheirah in the tereifah is also muteret. Why? Because it is kanus. It is not tereifah. Just as the milk of an olah is not olah, and the milk of a neveilah is not neveilah, kesheirah milk in a tereifah is also not tereifah. Achar chazarah. So far, so clear?
Now we come to the chakirot. Here is the chakirah. The chakirah we have to discuss today is one chakirah, which is going to be the axis of a big machloket (dispute) among the Rishonim. The chakirah is as follows: what is the status of milk in the keivah? What do you mean, what are my choices? My choices are very simple. Either it is milk, or perhaps I can tell you something else: milk in the keivah is not milk anymore. Something that is already in the stomach is junk.
You boys, imagine you had a stomach in front of you. You open the stomach, and there is food in it. Oh, Yishtabach Shemo, steak, french fries! Steak and french fries in the stomach! Once it goes into the stomach, it is ma'us; it is disgusting. So that is what I want to know in this chakirah: does stuff in the stomach have a din (law) of food—chalav, in this case—or does it have the status of garbage?
Nafka mina (practical implication): it is very simple. Rashi brings a nafka mina which, by the way, was Rashi’s mistake, and he admits that he made it. If you remember reading Rashi, he says, “Ta'iti”—I made a mistake. Unbelievable. He has no problem writing that he was ta'iti. If he had not said anything, I would not have known he was to'eh. He publicizes his errors.
He says, “I originally thought that if you take a keivah—a keivah kesheirah, it does not matter—and salt it with its milk inside, it is not basar bechalav. Because that chalav is not called chalav. That chalav is called what? Peresh, garbage. That is what I thought,” he says. That was his mistake. Remember reading that Rashi? You see where it says “ta'iti,” all the way down? “Hato'eh”—which one did you want us to read? Read it. “Hato'eh hayiti.” What does he say? Where is it? Right at the beginning of the line or something: “ta'iti.” Yes, you are almost there. Here: “To'eh to'eh hayiti.” Ah, to'eh, chavivi, “to'eh hayiti,” “ta'iti,” “to'eh hayiti.” “To'eh hayiti.” Another trick. Continue: “To'eh hayiti bechach shehayiti savur... modeh leRav... Avodah Zarah... olah... kohen sheda'ato yafah shorfah... shorfah chayah... shema minah pirsha be'alma hi.”
“Ah, I thought that when it said the kohen could drink it, I initially understood the Gemara in Avodah Zarah to mean that it was junk. You know why it is not asur bahana'ah? Because it is not achilah (eating), because it is not ochel (food); it is pirsha be'alma. Therefore, from that Gemara, I wanted to say that if you salt a keivah with its milk, it is not basar bechalav, because you are salting keivah im peresh. Ukeivah im peresh zeh lo basar bechalav. Zeh basar im peresh.”
So what is the nafka mina after that? A big nafka mina! People say—then he says, “I will prove it to you in a minute.” Then he says, “I made a mistake. Really, the pshat (plain meaning) in the Gemara over there in Avodah Zarah kaf-tet is: you know why the kohen can drink it? It is milk! Milk, of course it is milk! It is just separate.” Karush, separate. Ah, but it is milk! Therefore, if you salt a keivah with its milk, indeed it is basar bechalav. That is the change Rashi made in his learning. He thought to say it was peresh, but then he said, “No, it is milk.”
Okay, keep the cases in mind, boys. Go to a Gemara in Avodah Zarah lamed-dalet. I have it here. Amazing Gemara, lamed-dalet amud bet. This Gemara is important to this sugya. The Gemara says, “Amar Rav Acha bar Ahava amar Rav: hamekadesh beferesh shor haniskal.” Unbelievable guy, a very romantic guy. He wants to get married, and here he has a shor haniskal from the beit din (court). What is a shor haniskal? A shor that killed somebody. Therefore, the shor has to be killed: shor haniskal. You cannot be mekadesh (betroth) with a shor haniskal because it is asur bahana'ah.
So what did he do? He went to the shor haniskal and took the peresh from its stomach. He went to the lady and said, “Harei at mekudeshet li beferesh shor haniskal.” And the Gemara says, “Mekudeshet.” Mekudeshet besiman tov. Unbelievable! Why? Because the peresh of a shor haniskal is not asur bahana'ah. It is not asur bahana'ah; it is shaveh chesef (worth a perutah), it is shaveh perutah. I am not saying anything; this is the Gemara’s case. Kiddushin. Now you learned something. Halachah, you learned something: “Hamekadesh beferesh shor haniskal, mekudeshet.”
However, the Gemara says, “Beferesh eglei Avodah Zarah, einah mekudeshet.” The peresh of an egel of Avodah Zarah does not make her mekudeshet. The Gemara says, “Why?” Because the peresh of Avodah Zarah has a din of Avodah Zarah. The goy wants to makdish the whole animal because it is fat, so even the peresh has a din of Avodah Zarah, and you cannot be mekadesh with it. But with a shor haniskal, only the shor has a din of issur hana'ah, not the peresh. Good.
Then the Gemara says, “Amar Rava.” Rava says, “I will bring a proof.” What is my proof that Rava is right? Our Mishnah—no, not our Mishnah, the previous Gemara, the Gemara in kaf-tet. “Mideka'amar lehu”: they asked him, “Why can’t we eat the cheese of the goyim?” What did the Rav answer? “Shema'amidin bekivat neveilah.” “Dekamehadar lehu”: and he answered them, “Ve-halo keivat olah chamurah mikeivat neveilah” (Isn’t the stomach of a burnt offering more stringent than that of a carcass?). The keivat olah is more stringent; it is asur bahana'ah, more than a keivat neveilah. “Michlal de'isurei hana'ah sharu pirshayehu.” Oh. What do you see in that Gemara above? The Gemara says that something that is asur bahana'ah, “sharu pirshayehu.” What do those words mean? Pirshayehu means mutar.
It sounds as if, with the olah, why was the kohen able to drink it? It is asur bahana'ah! “Sharu pirshayehu!” And the Gemara is comparing that to what? Just as “sharu pirshayehu”—whatever those words mean, and this is the key, boys—so too, when you ma'amid gevinot in a keivat neveilah, it is mutar because “shari pirshayehu.” I want to know what those words mean: “shari pirshayehu.” How did you learn this Gemara? You did not read it. Now that you are hearing the lashon (wording), I will say it again. He says, “You know why the kohen can slurp the milk? Shari pirshayehu.” Mah peirush? Explain. It is not like, excuse the language, excrement that could be used for fertilizer or something like that. What does “shari pirshayehu” mean? It got separated. It has nothing to do with—
Oh, so you are learning “pirshayehu” as perush, “shari pirshayehu,” it is parush. Ah, it is parush. Therefore, you are learning that just as the chalav of an olah is parush, so too the chalav of a neveilah is parush. It is chalav, but—no, it is chalav. There is chalav to make milk, to make basar bechalav, but it would be mutar to make cheese. “Shari pirshayehu,” Avi, you are learning that it means biglal shezeh parush. Could I learn it a different way? Peresh? Garbage? Ah! “Shari pirshayehu”—I could learn, bediyuk (inference), that it is peresh! You know why the kohen could drink the milk? Because it is not milk. Something asur bahana'ah is peresh. And therefore, you know why I can use the chalav in the keivah to make cheese? It is peresh!
Why does that make it mutar bahana'ah? What makes it mutar? Only the ochel part is asur bahana'ah, not the peresh. Then it should not be asur in basar bechalav; you are allowed to cook it. Bediyuk! By the way, chachamim, I will give you many nafka minot. You want to know the nafka minot in how you learn this Gemara, whether it is parush or peresh? Hold the words. Remember I said to hold the words? This is the key: “Shari pirshayehu.” How do you learn these words? I will tell you many nafka minot. Give me nafka minot, boys. Give me nafka minot beyond this one: basar bechalav. Number one, right! If you learn it is peresh, if I salt the keivah with its milk in it, mutar! Mutar! As long as it is peresh. What am I salting? Keivah and peresh. Ah, peresh is garbage. Make a berachah on it. No, slow down—make a berachah. That is also a nafka mina, you are right. Peresh is garbage, so there is no basar bechalav, right! Give me another nafka mina.
Another nafka mina would be what our Mishnah says: “Kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah.” What does it have in its stomach? Tereifah. If you learn it is peresh, you could even use tereifah to make cheese; it is peresh! But if you learn that it is separate, let it be separate, it is still tereifah. You hear another nafka mina I just gave you? That is a big nafka mina. It should be a re'ayah (proof), no? Go slowly. I do not know if that Mishnah is kodem chazarah or after the chazarah. You hear the two nafka minot I gave you?
Rabotai, this chakirah I just gave you is the subject of a phenomenal machloket among the Rishonim. Let us learn shitat Rashi. I think shitat Rashi should be clear to you, because did Rashi not tell me that originally he thought it should be permissible to salt the keivah with the milk? He initially thought the pshat was peresh. But then he changed his mind because he made a mistake, and said that you will not be allowed to salt the keivah with the chalav, because it is going to be basar bechalav. Rashi holds that, be'etzem, it is called chalav. It is just not part of it. So it will not be called chalav neveilah, but it is chalav; it is milk. Hevanta? And what proof does he bring? From our Mishnah! Rashi brings a proof from our Mishnah. What does our Mishnah say? “Kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah, asurah.” If it were peresh, why should it be asurah? Ela, you see that with “kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah,” it is tereifah milk, and therefore you cannot make cheese from it. Zehu shitat Rashi.
So, rabotai, learn this well: lemaskanat hagemara lefi shitat Rashi—lemaskana. I am going to ask questions, and you give me the answers. I am asking you she'elot lefi shitat Rashi. I do not want kodem chazarah; I want the maskana. “Ma'amid be'or neveilah?” Or? Asur. Everybody, very good, no question. That was a trick question. Everybody says asur. That is not shitat Rashi; that is for anybody. Of course, it is a Mishnah! Or is asur.
Good. “Hama'amid bekeivat neveilah,” according to shitat Rashi, maskana? Neveilah? Mutar, mutar, because it is—why? It is not pirsha be'alma. No, I mean, it is separate. And so why are you saying the wrong word? Pirsha be'alma? Parush! Parush! Pirsha is—parush is separate. Zeh kol hasugya poh: peresh or parush. That is the whole sugya, if you put it on a needle. Good. Next question, shitat Rashi: “Tereifah sheyankah min hakesheirah?” Kesheirah. Kesheirah. Why? Separate. “Kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah?” Asur. Oh, asur. Why asur? Separate—there we go! It is chalav, but it is tereifah! Chazak uvaruch! Beautiful, beautiful. That is the maskana according to shitat Rashi.
By the way, that is why, if you look at these parentheses, Rashi does not gores them. Look at the last Gemara, boys. I am going to read it inside with you. You see where it says “Vehilcheta,” one, two, three, four lines from the bottom. You want me to read the “Vehilcheta”? Four lines from the bottom? Yes, boys. “Vehilcheta: ein ma'amidin be'or keivat neveilah”—pashut. “Aval ma'amidin bekeivat neveilah,” no problem. “Uvekeivat shechitat oved kochavim,” fine.
Now look at the parentheses: “Uvekeivat kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah.” You can also be ma'amid in a kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah! Rashi says, absolutely not—put that in parentheses! Of course not; throw that out! That is asurah. That is asurah lemaskana. Hevanta? Which means, chachamim, the last two cases of the Mishnah are kesheirah and asurah for the same reason. The reason kesheirah sheyankah min hatereifah is asurah is the same reason tereifah sheyankah min hakesheirah is kesheirah. Why? Because it is kanus. Since it is kanus, it will go either way. Therefore, both these dinim (laws) were said after the chazarah.
In the Gemara in kaf-tet in Avodah Zarah, what was the chazarah? No, it is not part of it. If it were part of it, then kesheirah would be asurah as well, because kesheirah is part of the tereifah. Ela, we learn from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah, acharei chazarah, that the chalav in the olah is separate. Oh, so you are teaching me the law of parush! Therefore, after the chazarah, I learn the last two dinim in the Mishnah: the tereifah is separate from the kesheirah, and therefore it is no good; and the kesheirah is separate from the tereifah, and therefore it is good. Beautiful! So Rashi’s derech (approach) is very clear. Rashi’s derech is that it is chalav, but it is separate. Good?
Open up the Rif, rabotai. Today is your lucky day. You get to know the Rif. Could we read the whole Rif from the Gemara? Are you ready to read the whole Rif? It is on daf kuf-yod-dalet bedapei ha-Rif, kuf-yod-dalet amud bet bedapei ha-Rif. You see the Gemara? Kuf-yod-dalet, rabotai, bedapei ha-Rif, amud bet. Unbelievable, the Rif.
I read: the Mishnah said basar—the Gemara—the Mishnah said neveilah and avodat kochavim. Remember the beginning of the Mishnah said two cases, neveilah and avodat kochavim? So the Gemara says, “Atu keivat oved kochavim lav neveilah hi?” “Amar Shmuel: chada katanei, keivat shechitat ovdei kochavim,” which is a neveilah. Read that again. So why is the Mishnah basically saying that chalav of a neveilah is a problem? “U-mi amar Shmuel hachi? Ve-ha'amar Shmuel: mipenei mah asru gevinat ovdei kochavim? Lefi she-ma'amidin otam be'or keivat neveilah. Ha keivah gufah sharya!” That is the Gemara’s question. “La kashya: kan kodem chazarah, kan le'achar chazarah.”
Now the Rif was very generous. He showed you where the chazarah is. He quotes the Gemara in Avodah Zarah: “Detnan, sha'al Rabbi Yishmael et Rabbi Yehoshua: mipenei mah asru gevinot ovdei kochavim?” He answered him, “Mipenei she-ma'amidin otam bekeivat neveilah.” So the rabbi asked him back, “What do you mean? Ve-halo keivat olah chamurah mikeivat neveilah,” and, “Ve-amru kohen she-da'ato yafah shorfah chayah.” So seemingly, if the milk of an olah is not a problem, the milk of a neveilah should not be a problem. “Chazar Rabbi Yehoshua ve-amar: mipenei she-ma'amidin otam be'or keivat eglei Avodah Zarah.” Beautiful, a different reason!
Now read the “Vehilcheta”: “Ein ma'amidin be'or keivat neveilah”—pashut. “Aval, bekeivat neveilah, u-bekeivat shel ovdei kochavim, u-bekeivat kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah, ma'amidin.” Where did you see those words? In the parentheses! The Rif gores the parentheses! “Ve-chol she-ken becheivat tereifah.” Mai ta'ama? Here is the key of the Rif: “De-chalav ha-mechunhas ba-keivah pirsha be'alma hu.” Not that it is parush; it is pirsha! So the Rif has a totally different way of learning this whole sugya.
He says, “You know how you learn the Gemara in kaf-tet in Avodah Zarah? When the rabbi told him, ‘Hey, the kohen is drinking it! You know why he is drinking it? It is not milk! It is not korban olah; it is peresh! Peresh is not asur bahana'ah!’” Ah! And therefore, the chalav in the neveilah—why can I make cheese from it? Because it is not chalav. It is not neveilah; it is nothing, it is peresh! If that is the case, tremendous nafka minot: a kula and a chumra. What is the kula according to the Rif? Salting it. Chazak uvaruch, salting it. There is no problem of basar bechalav. It is not chalav; it is peresh! If I salt the keivah with that stuff inside, there is no basar bechalav.
What is the chumra? What is the—oh, another kula comes out. Bediyuk, a kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah is no problem! “Ai, tereifah?” Zeh lo tereifah, zeh peresh. Hevanta? Therefore, kol she-ken kesherah. “Tereifah she-yankah min ha-kesherah”—of course, it is kesherah and it is peresh. So a phenomenal machloket comes out in how to learn the Gemara.
Now let us learn the Mishnah according to the Rif. The first line in the Mishnah is, “Ma'amid bekeivat neveilah asurah.” That is kodem chazarah. After the chazarah, mutar. Why? Peresh. Next case: “Kesheirah she-yankah min ha-tereifah”—that is asurah. That is kodem chazarah. Le'achar chazarah? Mutar; it is peresh. “Tereifah she-yankah min ha-kesheirah”—mutar, le'achar chazarah. So the last two cases: one case before the chazarah, one case after the chazarah. It flips it, yes.
According to Rashi, at least, the last two cases are together; they are clear, after the chazarah. According to the Rif, the first case is kodem chazarah, because le-ma'aseh, kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah is going to be muteret. But the Mishnah said asurah. Yes, kodem chazarah, we thought that one was together; we did not think it was peresh. After we knew that it was peresh, mutar. And the maskana when it says, “Tereifah she-yankah min ha-kesherah mutar,” yes, that is the maskana. Kodem chazarah, we thought maybe it was one, maybe it was considered part of the tereifah. Oh, so you just have to split the Mishnah up. So now, rabotai, we have two distinct shitot (approaches) among the Rishonim for learning the Gemara. You have shitat Rashi, which learns parush, and the Rif, which learns peresh. You see how we are making it easier for you?
Go back to that Gemara of Kiddushin. When the Gemara in Kiddushin came along and said, “You know why you can make kiddushin with the shor haniskal?” What was the language of the Gemara? “Ha-Gemara said, ‘I bring you a proof: ve-halo keivat olah chamurah mi-kivat neveilah? Mi-kelal de-issurei hana'ah sharu pirshayehu.’” Rashi will learn “shari pirshayehu” because it is milk that is just sitting there, separate. So it is not olah, it is not neveilah; no problem. The Rif will learn “shari pirshayehu” as peresh. Peresh, parush. Call that a riddle, huh? Are we clear on the two Rishonim, by the way?
Now you understand that Rashi wants no part of that parenthesis, the one that is knocked out. The Rif needs it—he strongly needs it.
One more shitah (approach), rabotai, which I am sure you did not get to see. Tomorrow we will continue more on this inyan, but now at least you have the mahalach. The shitat ha-Tosafot, which is Rabbeinu Tam, I guess we can read it inside. Open up Tosafot on daf kaf-tet—what is it, kaf-zayin? “Hachi garsinan be-rov sefarim.” Oh, ho, ho! You see the Tosafot at the bottom? “Hachi garsinan be-rov sefarim.” Now “hachi garsinan” adds “kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah,” that it is okay. That is the chiddush of that girsa.
“Vehilcheta, ein ma'amidin be-or keivat neveilah, aval ma'amidin be-kivat neveilah u-ve-kivat shechitat nochri u-ve-kivat kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah, ve-khol she-ken be-kivat tereifah she-yankah min ha-kesherah. Mai ta'ama? Chalav ha-mekhunas bah pirsha be-alma hu.” Look at Tosafot’s question: “Lich'orah, be-girsa zo kashya matnitin, de-tnan kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah asurah.” Tosafot are right away torn. How can you tell me that le-ma'aseh it is mutar? The Mishnah says asurah. And what? The seifa of our Mishnah sounds as if it is after the chazarah, because both cases were said together.
Rabotai, were the last two cases not said together? “Kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah, tereifah she-yankah min ha-kesherah.” Why? Same reason: “de-ha chalav mekhunas.” Tosafot understood from the Gemara that these last two cases were after the chazarah. That means that even after the chazarah, it is asurah. The Rif has to come along and say, “No, the first case is kodem chazarah.” But Tosafot says both cases were said together, both after the chazarah, and even after the chazarah it is asurah. How can the girsa say muteret? You see what Tosafot is grappling with? He does not like the switch. Lich'orah, they are said together. The Rif answers that the first is kodem chazarah and the second is le'achar chazarah. The Gemara said the last cases are after the chazarah. The Gemara said that. So we have a problem splitting them.
Tosafot says, “But I like the girsa. I like the girsa, but it does not work.” Bediyuk, why should it be asur? The Mishnah says asur; the girsa says lemaskana, mutar. “Because I like the girsa and I like the Mishnah.” You cannot like both of them, Tosafot. He says, “I can like both. I am going to make a pesharah (compromise).” “Umi kechacham, yode'a pesher davar?” What is the pesharah he makes? An amazing pesharah.
“Uvechul'hu yesh lomar teirutz zeh...” Tosafot says, “Hani milei chalav tzalul, dela chashiv pirsha, aval hakarush shebetoch hakeivah, chashiv pirsha.” He makes a chiluk (distinction). He says, “I agree with the Rif that it is pirsha, but I do not agree with the Rif to that extent. Which kind of milk is pirsha? The karush one, the congealed stuff. But the tzalul, if it is still liquidy, is not pirsha.”
Therefore, the Mishnah that said, “Kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah asurah,” is talking about betzalul. And the girsa that said, “Kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah,” is okay, is talking about bekarush. Bekarush! What is it? That is Tosafot. He makes a chiluk between when it is still tzalul, still liquid, and when it starts to congeal. After it starts to congeal and marry, it turns into garbage. So, rabotai, he made the split. He made the split, which means it starts off tzalul; that is still ochel. Then it turns into karush; that is why you—
So come down, rabotai. We have three shitot: shitat Rashi, shitat ha-Rif, and shitat Rabbeinu Tam. Nachzor al ha'inyan od pa'am (let us review the subject again). Shitat Rashi: “Shezeh chalav, rak shezeh kanus, zeh parush.” Therefore, “Kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah” is asurah. It is chalav, and the tereifah is contained in it. Therefore, it will be basar bechalav if we cook them together.
Shitat ha-Rif: extreme. “Mah shebetoch hakeivah, peresh. Lo shena tzalul, lo shena karush, peresh.” Therefore, there is no basar bechalav with a neveilah, and kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah is muteret. Because the milk in this tereifah—even the tzalul in it—is peresh. “Ai, chacham Rif, what will you do with the Mishnah?” Ah, that Mishnah is kodem chazarah. After that, there is shitat ha-Tosafot, which has a chiluk. “Ani maskim im ha-Rif. Mah shebetoch hakeivah zeh peresh. Aval hani milei bekarush. Aval tzalul zeh ochel.”
Nafka mina: if the chalav hatzalul is tereifah, it will be a problem. Hevantem? Nafka mina, basar bechalav: it is a problem. Nafka mina: it is chalav; if you drank it, it is chalav. Whereas Tosafot says peresh is when it is bekarush. And that is the pshat in the Mishnah. The Mishnah that said “Kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah” is no good; it is talking about betzalul. “Ai, the Gemara”—the Gemara with the parenthesis, the girsa—“Kesherah she-yankah min ha-tereifah kesherah,” is talking about bekarush.
Now the question is, now that you have the three shitot, that is the sugya. You learn the sugya, you have to break it down: Rashi, Rif, Rabbeinu Tam. Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam, and the Rif all had the girsa. Rashi did not. Obviously, you understand the inherent problems with each shitah. Maybe we will clarify them even better tomorrow so you see the inherent problems.
Lahalachah, I know it is not a nafka mina to many of you who are not making cheese, but lahalachah, who do we hold like? Open up, boys, Maran. Open up Maran in peh-zayin, halachah tet. David Meyer, read it for us. Yalla. Peh-zayin, tet. In the Shulchan Aruch? Yes, in the Shulchan Aruch, peh-zayin, tet.
“Chalav hanimtza bekeivah eino chalav. Mutar levashel bo basar, afilu betzalul shebah.” Good. Who does he hold like? The Rif. Rambam. It says right there. The Rif, Rambam, okay. He did not say Rambam today, so why are you saying Rambam? It says Rambam right next to it. “I know that, but you did not—don’t just say something like that, a chiddush. I saw the Rambam.” Okay, so it is the Rif and the Rambam.
Maran says, “Ein chiluk bein tzalul”—why does he have to say that? Because of Tosafot, because of Rabbeinu Tam. He does not hold like that. He has to add, “Ein chiluk bein tzalul le lezeh.” Whoever said there was a chiluk? Rabbeinu Tam said there was a chiluk. So Maran said, “Oh, there is no problem.” Read it again from the beginning, slowly: “Chalav hanimtza bekeivah eino chalav. Mutar levashel bo basar, afilu betzalul shebah.” Good. “Veyesh mi she'oser.” Oh! “Veyesh mi she'oser” what? “Betzalul shebah.” Who is that? Tosafot. Rabbeinu Tam. So now you have what is called a stam veyesh (anonymous ruling and dissent). Halachah ke-stam.
This is a big question in Yoreh De'ah: do we have the same rules of stam veyesh? The rabbis, like the Ben Ish Chai and Zivchei Tzedek, and that yeshiva, will say that in Yoreh De'ah we follow the yesh, unless there is hefsed merubah. The yesh—that means the machmir (stringent) view—applies unless you have hefsed merubah, and then you can be mekil (lenient) like the stam. If somebody calls you up and says, “Chacham, I made, I don’t know, 10 vats of cheese with chalav tzalul,” you have already done it; that is hefsed merubah. You can rely on Maran, who says that tzalul is peresh. But if you come to ask, Zivchei Tzedek will tell you, “Al ta'aseh” (do not do it). But Maran says, “Yesh!” The yesh says tzalul is tzalul.
Hevanta how he learns? Chacham Ovadia says, “No, stam veyesh is stam veyesh even in Yoreh De'ah. If somebody comes to ask you a question—‘Rabbi, I want to be ma'amid be'or keivat kesheirah she-yankah min ha-tereifah; it does not matter, chalut shebah, tzalul shebah?’—‘Ein, ein be'ayah.’ There is no problem with anything!” Then a nafka mina would apply to basar bechalav as well.
Is there a Rema here? “Vechen nohagim.” Ah! Tosafot. The Rema comes along and says the minhag (custom) of the Ashkenazim is like Rabbeinu Tam. Is there a Shach here? Sure. Is there a Shach next to “yesh nohagim,” or no Shach? No, “veyesh mi she'oser.” What does he say? “Peirush betzalul.” Nu, that is Rabbeinu Tam.
Continue: “Vechen nohagim. Nir'eh deha dehotzrach bese'if dalet lechalek bein karush letzalul shebah, de'af didevikitzur Maharshal mashma deTorat Chatat klal samech heh demutar bekarush, ayein sham.” Okay, so karush is no problem. “Mihu tzalul, tza'ad gimel, de'afilu bedi'avad asur. Veta'ama dilma nimo'ach midi dideih, de'im ken asur af bekarush mishum mar'it ha'ayin” (appearance of impropriety). Oh! Who says that? “Kemo shekatav bese'if dalet.” Maharshal? Who is he quoting? The Rema. Torat Chatat, Torat Chatat says. “Ve'ayein bese'if...” It is the Maharshal. “Afilu bedi'avad asur.” The Maharshal, later on, the Maharshal. He reads it—no, he is saying his own pshat.
Okay, continue: “U-Maharshal perek Kol Habasar siman kuf-zayin pasak de'afilu karush chashuv chalav mamash, ayein sham.” Wow, Rashi. So now you have a Maharshal who was posek like Rashi! So now, in psak (ruling), you have three positions: Maran pasak ka-Rif veha-Rambam; Rema pasak ke-Rabbeinu Tam; and Maharshal pasak ke-Rashi. Everybody took their own—ma'aneh? de'atra?
Le-ma'aseh, le-ma'aseh, today nobody is ma'amid in gevinot in the keivah of a neveilah or a kesheirah she-yankah. Ela, how do they make cheese today? With machines. They have synthetic rennet. It is a synthetic chemical that they put into the cheese, and it congeals it. Even the biggest cheese factories do not use this old-fashioned system. Throw it out. What are we doing? No, so just—look, tiheyeh bari. We learned for three hours today. At least we understand that we learned the sugya; we learned the sugya. Baruch Hashem le'olam, amen ve'amen.