Now, Rabotai (my teachers), we saw the Rambam (Maimonides) already. The Rambam is in perek chet (chapter eight), halachah yud-gimmel (law thirteen). We saw this Rambam already. We know this Rambam by heart: hayu lefanav shenei minei ochlin (There were before him two kinds of food), me'oravin (mixed together). He had shenei minei ochlin (two kinds of food), and the two kinds of food were mixed. That's borer (sorting), obviously. Borer echad meha'acher (Select one from the other), or meha'acher meha'echad, umani'ach le'echol miyad (And leaves it to eat immediately). So you sort one from the other. You have to sort the ochel (food) from the psolet (waste).
And thus wrote haTur (The Tur): hayu lefanav shenei minei ochalim, oto sherotzeh le'echol atah chashuv ke'ochel, hasheni psolet, ve'asur levorero (There were before him two kinds of food; the one he wants to eat is now considered food, the second waste, and it is forbidden to sort it). The Tur accepts the relative psolet. In Beit Yosef (The Beit Yosef), he brought that this is what haRosh (The Rosh) wrote, and they learned it from the baraita (early tannaitic teaching). That is where Tosafot went: hayu lefanav shenei minei ochalim. That was the girsa (textual reading) of Tosafot: hayu lefanav shenei minei ochlin. You have two foods. Why are there two foods? Where is the borer? Ah, one must be the one he likes, and one the one he doesn't like. The Beit Yosef writes: ve'ein lezeh ta'am (And this has no rationale), ela im ken tomar she'oto sherotzeh le'echol atah mikrei ochel, ve'idach mikrei psolet (unless you say that the one he wants to eat is now called food, and the other is called waste). He says: What is the baraita talking about when it says, hayu lefanav shenei minei ochalim? Why is having two kinds of food a borer issue? The Beit Yosef says the only way it makes sense is if one of them is what you want to eat and one is what you don't want to eat. Good. So far, that is what we learned.
Ulefi zeh (According to this), with two kinds of food, it is asur (forbidden) to take the min (kind) he doesn't want, because it is considered waste; that would be sorting waste from food. And even though, as we saw, acharonim (later authorities) made an diyuk (inference) in the Rambam—the Rambam did not say to sort food from waste; he said to sort one from the other. Which one is “one,” and which one is “the other”? It doesn't sound like he said it made a difference. The Rema (Rabbi Moses Isserles), if you remember, said, umani'ach et hasheni, “and leaves the second,” and that whole addition. Without that addition, it sounded as though the Rambam allowed you, with food and food, to choose whichever one you want, sheyachol livroir eizeh sherotzeh, kol shehu le'altar (that he may sort whichever he wants, as long as it is for immediate use). We explained that the reasoning is good. What was the sevara (reasoning)? When sorting two kinds, the definition of the labor is hafradah (separation), right? What is borer? Separating. It is not because he has made waste and food. Therefore, the determining factor for the name of the labor is that it is done after some time, when he is liable. But for immediate use, it is always permitted. The Rambam may be telling you that in this case we make a chiluk (distinction) between actual waste and food, and relative waste and food. With actual waste and food, you cannot take waste from food. With relative waste, that is one of the leniencies.
Why are shenei minei ochlin a borer issue? The Rambam could mean that the issue is hafradah; so long as you don't do the hafradah le'achar zman, it should be mutar (permitted). But if, as the Beit Yosef says, shenei minei ochlin are psolet and ochel, then the regular rules apply: even le'altar, it would be asur to take the psolet and not the ochel. The Rambam never committed to calling shenei minei ochlin psolet and ochel or saying that one is wanted and the other is not; Tosafot did, and the Beit Yosef does. In any case, since Maran says there is no rationale for this ruling unless you say that the kind he doesn't want is considered waste, and in the Shulchan Aruch he quoted the Rambam, he did not note that the Rosh disagrees with the Rambam. This suggests that he thinks they have the same position. Therefore, one should uphold the explanation of the Bi'ur Halachah. But in practice, we saw this already: the bottom line is that you have to be machmir (stringent) even with relative waste. You can only take food from waste, and we are not going to let you take whichever one you want.
The Bi'ur Halachah says in this law that having two kinds of food is a Torah-level prohibition. Just as actual waste is a Torah-level prohibition, so, too, are two kinds of food a Torah-level prohibition. What is his source? Terumat HaDeshen. De-ein bererah be-min echad, kegon she-yesh bet minei dagim (There is no sorting within one kind, for example, when there are two kinds of fish). Let's say you have two kinds of fish, ve-yesh bahem chatichot gedolot ve-ktanot (and they have large and small pieces). You have big fish and small fish. Ve-im mafrid bein sugei ha-dagim, havei borer (If he separates between the kinds of fish, that is sorting). Separating between kinds of fish is sorting. But with the same kind of fish, big and small, there is no sorting. That is what Terumat HaDeshen said. Ach im loke'ach ha-ktanot min ha-gedolot, ve-eino makpid al min echad davka, lo havei borer, u-mutar la'asot ken af le'achar zman (But if he takes the small ones from the large ones, and is not particular about one kind specifically, it is not sorting, and he may do so even for later). That means they are big and small, but they are the same kind. So even if you sort them for later, it is okay, because there is no sorting within the same species. She-eino mafrid bein shnei ha-minim, ela mafrid be-min echad, ve-lo shaycha ba-zeh bererah (He is not separating between two kinds, but separating within one kind, and sorting does not apply here). I guess borer is with two kinds, not when you have the same kind. Sorting is one kind from another.
“And he is uncertain”—oh, that's with everything! Yes, that's for sure with the nuts. No, no nuts. Leave the nuts. Fruit! Food! U-mistapek (And he is uncertain), Terumat HaDeshen is uncertain about two kinds of fish: ei shayach ba-zeh bererah, keivan she-ha-chatichot gedolot hen ve-nikarot bifnei atzman, ha-im chashiv ta'arovet (mixture)? Another question: Even if it's two fish, but one is big and one is small, is that considered sorting? They aren't mixed. Remember the reasoning we had on Motza'ei Shabbat? What is sorting? Sorting is when they are mixed. Here you have a big fish and a small fish. I took the small one, took the big one, but it isn't considered mixed. Ve-nata le-hachmir mishum safek chiyuv chatat (doubt of a sin-offering liability). He says, “Oh, so the Taz (Taz) says it is a doubt of a sin-offering liability.” Hold it! What is a doubt of a sin-offering liability? So, you see as a side point that it is de-oraita (Torah-level) even with two foods. That is what he wants to show. He is not yet discussing the big and small; he wants to show you that there are opinions that hold that even with two foods there is safek chiyuv chatat. Therefore, Terumat HaDeshen holds that both cases are de-oraita (Torah-level). Hayu lefanav shnei minei ochlin. What did the baraita say, by the way? Hayu lefanav shnei minei ochlin ve-im berar chayav chatat (There were before him two kinds of food, and if he sorted, he was liable to bring a sin-offering). In the same case! So you see that two kinds of food can lead to liability for a sin-offering, and it is speaking about two kinds of food. The Beit Yosef did not comment on Terumat HaDeshen. I mean, the Beit Yosef agreed that it is food and waste. He didn't say anything about de-rabbanan (rabbinic-level). So it's fair to say that he would agree: if the Beit Yosef classifies it as food and waste, then what difference is there between actual food and waste and relative food and waste? It should be a Torah-level prohibition.
Now, Chacham Ben Tzion—we'll get to Chacham Ben Tzion. He writes that the Rambam's view—which we saw, Rabotai—is that berirat ochel me-ochel (food from food) is mi-de-rabbanan. Oh! Chacham Ben Tzion wants to hold that, no, sorting food from food is rabbinic-level. Why is it rabbinic-level? He proved this from what the Beit Yosef wrote about the Rambam: that the Rambam distinguishes between sorting waste from food and sorting food from food. When sorting waste from food, it must be for immediate use; otherwise, he is liable. What did we say the Rambam's wording was for two kinds of food? “From morning until evening.” So already you see a difference. When it came to taking waste from food, the Rambam clearly said “for immediate use.” But when the Rambam came to two kinds of food, he gave you “from morning until evening”—six hours. Wait, wait, wait! Already you see that the Rambam treated food and food differently, because he gave you a different time frame. With two kinds of food, he is liable only if he sorts from morning until evening. The Beit Yosef asks: Where did the Rambam get the idea to distinguish this way?
Remember where Chacham Ben Tzion brought his proof from? Yom Kippurim—Yom Kippur. He writes there in Ohr LeTzion that, according to the Gemara in Masechet Shabbat, it is permitted on Yom Kippur to do knivat yarak (trimming vegetables) from Minchah uma'alah (from the afternoon prayer onward). What are you doing? Rashi says hasarat ha'alim (removing the leaves): taking off the spoiled leaves of the salad to prepare it. They permitted doing this because of ogmat nefesh (distress of the soul). And so ruled the Rambam. The Maggid Mishneh (Maggid Mishneh) challenged this: If sorting is a Torah-level prohibition, how can this be permitted? He answered that sorting applies only when taking food from psolet gamur (complete waste), or one kind of food from another kind. But here it is all one kind, all one kind of food, and these leaves are not complete waste and are not considered waste. It is possible they are fit to eat under pressure. Since that is so, on Shabbat this is only a shevut (rabbinic restriction), and it was permitted on Yom Kippurim.
The Maggid Mishneh says that this would be asur (forbidden) only mi-de-rabbanan (at the rabbinic level) on Shabbat. He is treating it like ochel mitoch ochel (food from food), but one part is something you don't want to eat. He called it rabbinic-level. So on Kippur, mishum ogmat nefesh, it would be permitted. Chacham Ben Tzion learns from there that the Rambam holds that taking food from food is only rabbinic-level.
In its simple meaning, the intent is what Terumat HaDeshen wrote: with one kind, sorting does not apply unless one is actually removing waste. Here, it is one kind, and also not complete waste. You aren't going to eat it, but someone can eat it; it is edible under pressure. Therefore, it is not subject to a Torah-level prohibition of sorting, only a rabbinic one. But in Ohr LeTzion, Chacham Ben Tzion understood the Maggid Mishneh to mean something else. Since it is not actual waste, because it is fit to eat under pressure, and only one part is better prepared than the other, he compared it to two kinds of food, where you don't want one of them. You're right that just because I don't want one doesn't mean it's fit to eat, still. So he compared the lettuce case to a regular case of two kinds of food. Therefore, sorting two kinds of food is prohibited only at the rabbinic level, and from here the Rambam teaches that the prohibition of sorting two kinds of food is rabbinic-level.
Now, you could make a distinction—you wanted chillukim; you can make one. The Rambam's case was one piece of lettuce. It's one piece of lettuce, so I'm sorting lettuce from lettuce. Well, maybe I can say that lettuce from lettuce is rabbinic-level because it's the same item. And even if you tell me that the whole bunch is really edible under pressure, okay, that would be rabbinic-level. But from there, can you learn about filberts from almonds, where I don't eat the filberts? I don't know—would two different species also be rabbinic-level? Ah, that's quite a jump. No, that's the case: lettuce, lettuce. Biknivat yarak (when trimming vegetables). Rashi says, mah zeh knivat yarak? Taking the bad part of the lettuce from the good part of the lettuce. So Chacham Ben Tzion understood from that that basically it's two kinds of food. This is food and food; that is two kinds of food from one food. No, no, this from this. You could say it even more strongly: Chacham Ben Tzion is saying not only this from this, but even two different kinds. So you could question that jump by Chacham Ben Tzion. Do you want to say that the Rambam would hold that lettuce is rabbinic-level, and that means he would hold that any two kinds of food are rabbinic-level? Or only lettuce! Enough with what he permitted. I mean, you want to—
So Chacham Zafrani says, ela sheyesh leha'ir, demilshon ha-Beit Yosef mashma beda'at ha-Rambam shekol she'eino borer min mechavero levein ha'arbayim, sha...—we can say it the other way: it is permitted from the outset and not prohibited at all, even rabbinically. From the Beit Yosef, the implication is that it isn't a rabbinic prohibition. It sounds like, if you do it from morning until evening, then you would have to say it's rabbinically prohibited—a big chiddush. But it's not implied that the Rambam said it is rabbinically prohibited. It sounds like on Shabbat itself it is permitted.
He says, in general, the Maggid Mishneh's actual explanation needs a great deal of analysis. The Maggid Mishneh explicitly wrote there to equate sorting food from one kind of food with sorting food from waste, and to make it a Torah-level prohibition. In any case, that means the opposite: the Maggid Mishneh clearly said that two kinds of food are Torah-level. He was lenient only in the lettuce case, which is really considered one kind. So how did the Chacham Tzvi jump to... In any case, even if we accept this novel explanation—even if we want to explain the Rambam's words explicitly this way—the law is still not so, as we proved. Again, the bottom line is that we are not going to hold that it is rabbinic-level. We are going to hold that it is waste, and if you consider it waste, it is a Torah-level prohibition. So you won't be able to—Not that it would make a difference for us if it were rabbinically prohibited; forbidden is still forbidden, so it's still forbidden. But it's not going to make a difference. We hold this is a Torah-level prohibition, and that's that.
Now watch the case here. In the Bi'ur Halachah, he brings Peri Megadim regarding the law of sorting two kinds of food. He sorted two kinds of food and left both of them. Whoa. Could you do that? Could you sort two kinds of food and leave them both? I just want to separate them; I want to eat them both. They're both food to me; they're both good for me. I want to separate the nuts, the almonds from the peanuts. So you just go like this. I want to eat them both. “No, later.” Later. “I want to just separate them.” There's no waste here for me. There's no waste. I'm not sorting food from waste here. What's the labor? You're sorting? What is sorting? Sorting is food from waste. Where is the waste here? No, the two kinds of food in that baraita meant one was food and one was waste. Over there, we said Tosafot asked, “What's the sorting there?” Oh, one must be food and one must be waste—the one you don't want. I want both! I want both! I like filberts; I love almonds. So what are you doing? I'm just categorizing them. I want all the almonds here; I want all the—Hey, sorting! Why is it sorting? Where's the waste? Where's the waste? Rabotai, one of the conditions is taking food from waste. That's one of the conditions. Where's the waste here? It's the next thing. Where's the waste? No waste, so no sorting. No, no—is that what makes it waste? The waste is because I don't want it, not because I don't want it now. No, no, no, no. Who said? Who said?
I don't want—That's a question, by the way. That is the question! By the way, we were always talking about eating this item: there are filberts—who wants these big, junky nuts? I don't eat them. Oh, but people eat them. Okay, that's waste. Now we're giving a new case. We're not saying we're stuck eating it later. This is today's question. I don't know whether it would be— I don't know why that is forbidden. Do I have to eat everything now? I have to eat it now? It's food! I want to eat both of them. What do you want? I want to eat this at 1:00, and I want to eat this at 1:01. Does wanting to eat it at 1:01 mean it's waste? Why is it the next meal? But in this case, I'm not eating anything now. I asked you that question yesterday. I don't think just because I'm eating it later, that turns it into waste. I want to eat both! I want to eat both—why is that waste? I want to eat both. I wasn't sorting food from waste; I want food and food. And we're crystallizing the question here, in this case. I just want to categorize.
By the way, you know how often this happens, Rabotai? You're always putting things away. I'm putting forks and spoons away. I put all the forks over here, all the knives over here, in the drawer: knife, knife, fork, spoon, spoon, spoon, spoon, spoon. What's the waste here? Nothing. I like the forks, I like the spoons, I like the knives. But I'm just categorizing. “But you're not using the spoon until later.” So that's the she'elah (question). And you're putting it away at night. It's not for immediate use. Why does it have to be for immediate use? Where is the waste here? Or putting books away: I have all the books, the chumash over here, the Gemara over here, the other thing over here. I'm categorizing! Ah, it's ochel mitoch ochel. Is it ochel mitoch ochel for immediate use? No, for later! We never saw that food from food is forbidden for later. The whole thing is—wait. We never saw food from food for later. We saw food and waste. It's either all food or all waste, right? Right! We never saw two good things. Separating people. We saw two good things. I take all the black grapes and put them in one bowl. I take all the green grapes and put them in a different bowl. Are we going to have this same issue if everything is waste? Putting the recycling in the bin? Same thing, same thing, same thing—all waste, all waste. That's not sorting either; it's all junk. I guess basically the question is categorizing. Categorizing equals that.