Waiting between meat and milk, and between milk and meat
[1] (Halacha 930)
The Gemara in Maseches Chullin1 states: 'Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: Fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon [= in an unrestrained manner, without being careful with them. Rashi], he taught it [= this is how he received it as an ordered tradition from his teacher. Rashi], and he explained it [= and he explained from his own reasoning what "with abandon" means. Rashi]: without washing the hands and without wiping the mouth [= that if he ate this and wished to eat that, he need not wash his hands or wipe, but with the meat of an animal wiping is required, as below, so that nothing of the first should remain stuck in his gums. Rashi]. Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Mesharshiya happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi; they brought him cheese - he ate, they brought him meat - he ate, and he did not wash his hands. They said to him: But Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon - fowl and cheese, yes; meat and cheese, no! He said to them: That applies at night, but by day - I can see'.
And further on the Gemara2 states: Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yochanan: How long must one wait between meat and cheese? He said to him: Nothing at all. Is that so? But Rav Chisda said: One who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese; cheese - he is permitted to eat meat! Rather, how long must one wait between cheese and meat? He said to him: Nothing at all. The matter itself: Rav Chisda said: One who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese; cheese - he is permitted to eat meat. Rav Acha bar Yosef said to Rav Chisda: What is the law of meat between the teeth? He read concerning it: "הבשר עודנו בין שיניהם" ("The meat was still between their teeth"). Mar Ukva said: In this matter I am vinegar the son of wine compared with my father, for my father, when he would eat meat now, would not eat cheese until tomorrow at this time, whereas I - it is at this seudah that I do not eat, but at another seudah I do eat'.
And the Rishonim disagreed in explaining the words of these Gemaros, as follows:
a) The Behag wrote3: 'Rav Chisda said: one who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese - and this is specifically without wiping, but if he wipes his mouth it is permitted to eat. But after cheese it is permitted to eat meat without wiping, and he must wash his hands and his mouth in between'.
And so too the Tosfos4 wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Tam: 'And Rabbeinu Tam explains, and so too the Halachos Gedolos, that "one who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese" refers to without washing and wiping, but with washing and wiping it is permitted; one who ate cheese is permitted to eat meat even without washing and wiping, and Mar Ukva, who would not eat until another seudah, that was without washing and wiping, or alternatively he was being stringent upon himself'.
However fowl differs from meat, as Agra taught that it is eaten with abandon, and the Tosfos wrote there: 'And Rabbeinu Tam explains the reason of Agra because fowl does not stick to the hands, to the teeth and to the gums'.
[And the Rosh wrote5 'And since Rav Alfas z"l brought the teaching of Agra, evidently he holds like Rabbi Akiva, who said that a chaya and fowl are Rabbinic, as Rav Ashi answered above that the whole of it is Rabbi Akiva. And also Abaye rejected the words of Rav Yosef, who wished to say: learn from this that the meat of fowl in milk is Biblical. And so the Geonim ruled. And that which Agra took fowl and did not take a chaya - because it is more common'].
Accordingly, according to this view6 it is always permitted to eat meat after cheese, but for cheese after meat one must perform washing and wiping between them, and for cheese after fowl one need not do anything at all.
b) However the Tosfos themselves disagreed with Rabbeinu Tam, and these are their words: 'It is astonishing - how does it raise a difficulty from cheese after meat against meat after cheese, for Rav Yitzchak ate cheese and afterwards meat, and it is not comparable, as it says shortly. And one may answer that this is the difficulty: that the beraisa of Agra implies that fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon, without washing the hands and without wiping the mouth, but other meat requires washing and wiping the mouth; and in what case? If meat was first, then even with washing and wiping it does not suffice until another seudah, as it says shortly - rather it must be cheese first, and that which it took here "meat and cheese" was not precise, but rather cheese and meat, no; and since the beraisa mentions fowl first, it likewise took meat first here, and the beraisa took fowl first because even fowl first is eaten with abandon'.
That is, the Tosfos agreed with Rabbeinu Tam regarding fowl, that it is permitted to eat it before cheese or after it without wiping and rinsing7; however regarding meat they disagreed with Rabbeinu Tam and hold that meat after cheese requires washing and wiping, but for cheese after meat one must wait until another seudah.
c) However the Rambam8 agreed with the principle that the Tosfos wrote, but added that the law of fowl and the law of meat are equal, and these are his words: 'One who ate cheese or milk first is permitted to eat meat after it immediately, and he must rinse his hands and wipe his mouth between the cheese and the meat .. To what does this apply? To the meat of an animal or of a chaya; but if he ate the meat of fowl after he ate the cheese or the milk, he requires neither wiping the mouth nor washing the hands. One who ate meat first, whether the meat of an animal or the meat of fowl, may not eat milk after it until there is between them the measure of another seudah, which is about six hours, because of the meat between the teeth which is not removed by wiping'9.
And the Rashba wrote10: 'The ruling of halacha according to the view of the Rambam z"l comes out .. and this is the straight path in this teaching, in my opinion'.
And in practice the Tosfos too11 wrote that the minhag is like the Rambam: 'And the world has the minhag not to eat cheese after meat, and even after fowl'12. And the Rosh wrote13: 'And one should not change the minhag'14.
Accordingly, in this halacha we saw that after meat [and in practice also after fowl] one must wait until another seudah; in the next halacha we will expand further on the parameters of this, and on the practical ramifications.
--------------
Notes:
1 104b ↩
2 105a ↩
3 Hilchos Brochos ch. 6, p. 76 ↩
4 Chullin 104b, s.v. 'Fowl and cheese' ↩
5 Chullin ch. 8 siman 5 ↩
6 The Rashba (Chullin ibid.) wrote that a Gaon also held so, and that this is the view of the Raz"h (Chullin 37a) ↩
7 The Rashba wrote (Chullin 105a, and Toras HaBayis HaAroch 3:4, 86b): 'And regarding fowl and afterwards cheese, according to the words of the Ramban z"l its law is like the law of cheese and afterwards fowl, and they are always eaten with abandon, without wiping the mouth and without washing the hands, whether by day or by night' ↩
8 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9, halachos 26, 27, 28 ↩
9 And regarding the meat of an animal, the Rashba wrote there that this is the view of Rabbeinu Chananel and of the Baal HaItur. And he concluded (Toras HaBayis ibid. 87a): *'Therefore the approach of Rabbeinu Chananel z"l and of Rav Alfasi z"l appear to me to be the essential one. And so we and our fathers have conducted ourselves'*. And regarding the view of the Rif the Rishonim disagreed, for the Ra'ah (Chullin 105a) was in doubt as to his view, whereas the Rashba there and the Ran (Chullin 37b) wrote that the Rif held like the Rambam ↩
10 Toras HaBayis ibid. ↩
11 The Tosfos explained that it is possible the stringency stems from their concern that fowl is forbidden by Torah law ↩
12 Chullin ch. 8 siman 5 ↩
13 However the Beis Yosef (OC siman 173) wrote: 'And it appears to me that this that the world has the minhag not to eat cheese after meat at all is not on account of a fence and a safeguard that they had this minhag, but rather *because they hold like the view of the Rambam* ..' ↩
[2] (Halacha 931)
In the previous halacha we saw the words of Mar Ukva, that after eating meat one must wait until another seudah in order to be able to eat milk (and we saw the view of the Behag and Rabbeinu Tam, who held that by way of wiping and rinsing it is possible even at that same seudah, but the minhag did not follow their view).
Question: What is considered another seudah?
Answer: The Rishonim disagreed as to the definition of another seudah:
a) The measure of time between the morning and evening seudos.
The Rif wrote1: 'until he waits the measure of what is needed for another seudah'.
And the Rosh explained2: 'Meaning at its time, when a person is accustomed to eat a seudah, that is, from the time of the morning seudah until the time of the evening seudah'.
And the Rambam3 wrote: 'One who ate meat first, whether the meat of an animal or the meat of fowl, may not eat milk after it until there is between them the measure of another seudah, which is about six hours'4, 5.
However, with regard to what the above Rishonim wrote, that the waiting time between the seudos is six hours, the Issur v'Heter (attributed to Rabbeinu Yerucham) wrote6: 'One who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese until another seudah, like Rav Chisda, and so Mar Ukva conducted himself, because the meat and the fat stick in the mouth for a long time; and R"B wrote: because the meat between the teeth is called meat, as it says7 "הבשר עודנו בין שניהם" ("The meat was still between their teeth"), and that is three hours, like Rashi; and for this reason it is good to pick [his teeth] at another seudah if he will eat cheese'.
b) The conclusion of the first seudah.
The Tosfos8 wrote: '"at another seudah I do eat" - not at the seudah that people are accustomed to eat, one in the morning and one in the evening, but rather even immediately, if he cleared the table and recited the bracha it is permitted, for the Rabbonon did not distinguish'.
And so too the Ravyah wrote9: 'And if he ate meat, at that seudah he does not eat cheese, but at another seudah he eats, as in the incident of Mar Ukva. And meat between the teeth is meat, as it is written "הבשר עודנו בין שניהם" ("The meat was still between their teeth"), and one must pick it out. And there are those who explain "seudah" as that which the Torah established in "בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר לאכול ולחם בבוקר" ("when Hashem gives you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning"), but it does not appear correct to me to be stringent; rather Birkas HaMazon with a small interval'.
That is, according to their view there is no matter here of an interval of time, but rather a complete transition to another seudah, and this is by closing the first seudah, with the clearing of the table and a final bracha.
c) Waiting an hour
The Issur v'Heter HaAroch wrote10: 'And the world has the minhag to wait (gloss) one hour of the twenty-four of the day after Birkas HaMazon, and he then eats cheese even without wiping, and he waits the hour even after eating the meat of a chaya or of fowl'.
And so it is brought in Sefer Minhagei Mahari"l11: 'One who ate meat, even of fowl, may not eat cheese afterwards until another seudah. The early chassidim, and nowadays too, wait six hours, and the minhag is to wait one hour'.
And in the glosses to Shaarei Dura it is written12: 'Many have the minhag to be lenient and make a compromise of their own accord, to wait one hour after a meat seudah, and they cleared the table and recited the bracha, and then they eat cheese. And even though we have not found a reason or a hint for this measure whichever way one looks at it, nevertheless who shall protest against them, since the Tosfos and the Ravyah permit. However the modest ones hold back until from the morning seudah to the evening seudah. Mahara"i z"l'.
Accordingly, there are those who made a compromise between the views and made a bracha and a clearing of the table and also a wait of an hour.
The Pri Chodosh13 wrote that this practice is based on the Zohar: 'This minhag was drawn for them from the Sefer HaZohar, for it is stated there at the end of Parshas Mishpotim14: we find that anyone who eats this food which is joined together, whether in one hour or at one seudah, etc., that is, within one hour even though he eats it at two seudos, or at one seudah even though he tarried the whole day and ate other things in between and there are six hours from the eating of meat to the cheese - even so it is forbidden. We learn from here a stringency and a leniency: a stringency, in that it implies that even meat after cheese is forbidden within one hour or at one seudah; and a leniency, that cheese after meat is permitted after an hour and when it is not at one seudah'.
However the Kreisi u'Pleisi15 rejected his understanding of the Zohar, and wrote a different explanation: 'The Pri Chodosh's intention is to give a reason for this minhag from the Zohar, which says not to eat for one "shaata". But this is not so, for the term "shaata" means one period, and it is not defined by the hours of the world, but rather a period, and from midday until evening is likewise called one "shaata". But it appears that this - whether to wait one hour or six hours - is a disagreement regarding digestion, for see in OC siman 184 in the Magen Avraham s"k 9 that the beginning of digestion is approximately an hour and a fifth, and the end of digestion is six hours. And those who are lenient reckoned that it is like the measure of the beginning of digestion with regard to Birkas HaMazon, that thereafter one need no longer recite Birkas HaMazon; if so, with regard to this too it has already been digested and gone, and therefore it is permitted to eat, and their reasoning is nearly sound. And those who are stringent follow the end of digestion, which is six hours as the Magen Avraham wrote there, and therefore a wait of six hours is required, and this is clear'.
Accordingly, in the previous halacha we saw the views of the Rishonim as to whether one must wait between meat and milk, or whether cleaning suffices; and in this halacha we saw the views of the Rishonim as to what is considered waiting from one seudah to another. In the next halacha we will see the words of the poskim, the halacha in practice.
--------------
Notes:
1 Chullin 37b ↩
2 Chullin ch. 8 siman 5 ↩
3 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9 halacha 28 ↩
4 In the Biur HaGra (YD siman 89:2) he wrote to explain the calculation of the time: 'For the morning seudah of a talmid chochom is at the sixth hour, as it says in the first chapter of Shabbos (10a) and of Pesachim; and Mar Ukva said "at the seudah" etc., and he said it as a matter of law, for he called himself vinegar in that he did not make a fence to be stringent. Rif, see there' ↩
5 The Acharonim disagreed whether these hours are zmanios hours or equal hours: the Pri Chodosh (YD siman 89 s"k 6) wrote that they are zmanios hours, and therefore in the winter this can come out to about four equal hours. But the Kreisi u'Pleisi (YD ibid., Pleisi s"k 3) wrote that they are equal hours, and therefore it is always six hours ↩
6 siman 39 ↩
7 Bamidbar 11:33 ↩
8 Chullin 105a ↩
9 siman 1108 ↩
10 Shaar 40 siman 4 ↩
11 In Hilchos Issur v'Heter of Shaarei Dura ↩
12 siman 76:2 ↩
13 Cited in note 5 ↩
14 125b ↩
15 Pleisi ibid. s"k 3 ↩
[3] (Halacha 932)
In the previous halachos we saw the views of the Rishonim regarding the interval between meat and milk, that there are those who sufficed with wiping and rinsing, and there are those who required clearing the table and a final bracha, and there are those who required a wait of six hours.
Question: How was the halacha ruled in practice?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote1: 'One who ate meat, even of a chaya or of fowl, may not eat cheese after it until he waits six hours'.
And the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And there are those who say that they need not wait six hours; rather, immediately, if he cleared the table and recited Birkas HaMazon, it is permitted by way of wiping and rinsing. And the widespread minhag in these lands is to wait one hour after eating meat, and they then eat cheese. However they must also recite Birkas HaMazon after the meat, for then it is like another seudah, at which it is permitted to eat according to the words of those who are lenient2. But without Birkas HaMazon, a wait of an hour is of no avail. And there is no difference whether he waited the hour before Birkas HaMazon or afterwards3. And if he found meat between his teeth after the hour, he must pick it out and remove it. And there are those who say that one should not recite Birkas HaMazon in order to eat cheese, but people are not careful in this4. And there are those who are meticulous to wait six hours after eating meat before cheese, and so it is proper to do'.
And the Maharsha"l wrote5: 'And I hold to the explanation of "from one seudah to another" in the average manner for most people, that is, one in the morning and one in the evening, and so is the essential view, not to be lenient in this at all. And it is impossible to protest against people who are not bnei Torah, but with bnei Torah it is fitting to protest against them and to rebuke them, that they should not be lenient with less than six hours, particularly since in Shaarei Dura he wrote that so the world had the minhag, like the ruling of R. Moshe, that six hours are required, and not like the words of the Ri, who permits when he cleared the table and recited the bracha. Nevertheless, I concede to the explanation of the Ri, that it depends on clearing the table and reciting the bracha, for if he did not clear and recite the bracha, even the whole day long it is forbidden, for we require another seudah. And many people are lenient in this, and it is an error in their hands'.
The Shach6 brought the words of the Rashal, and wrote: 'And that which the Rav wrote in the gloss, "but without Birkas HaMazon a wait of an hour is of no avail" - it is not precise, for indeed the whole day long it is forbidden until he has cleared the table and recited the bracha'.
And regarding what the Rema wrote, that the waiting must be in addition to Birkas HaMazon, the Shach wrote7: 'It appears that if he ate meat without a seudah, he must recite a final bracha beforehand, and without this there is no clearing'.
And regarding the time from which the six hours are calculated, the Noda BiYehudah wrote in the Dagul MeRevava8: 'From here it clearly implies that the six hours are from the end of the eating of the meat until the beginning of the cheese seudah, for since he needed to explain that one need not wait from the time of the clearing, it implies that from the end of the eating, at any rate, one must wait ..'.
Accordingly, the Mechaber ruled like the Rambam, that both after the meat of an animal and after fowl or a chaya one must wait six hours; the Rema brought the view of the Tosfos that clearing the table and a bracha suffice, but added that the minhag is to wait only an hour, and on condition that Birkas HaMazon [or a final bracha] was also recited, yet he concluded that there are those who wait six hours and so it is proper to do; and the Maharsha"l wrote that he does not understand why they were lenient not to wait six hours, and that with bnei Torah one must protest about this, and the Maharsha"l further added that a wait of six hours is of no avail without a final bracha.
And in practice the poskim of Ashkenaz too wrote that six hours are required, like the words of the Mechaber, and as the Pri Megadim wrote9: 'And so is the halacha and the minhag, that they wait six hours, and one should not breach the fence10 - see the Shach; and we likewise require that he cleared the table and recited Birkas HaMazon, for otherwise even the whole day is of no avail'.
And the Chochmas Adam11 wrote: 'And the widespread minhag in these lands is to wait six hours, like the view of the Beis Yosef .. and one who is lenient in this transgresses "בל תטוש תורת אמך" ("do not forsake the teaching of your mother")'.
And the Aruch HaShulchan wrote12: 'And so is the widespread minhag in all the dispersions of Klal Yisroel, to wait six hours, and Heaven forbid to change it, and about this it is said "פורץ גדר וגו'" ("one who breaches a fence, etc."). And it appears to me that with a person who is not well, whom the doctors have instructed to drink milk, he may rely on this view, with a wait of an hour and with rinsing his mouth, even though there is no danger involved; and likewise a boy or girl who are thin and whose remedy is to drink milk - a wait of an hour suffices for them'.
Accordingly, in practice one must wait six hours from the end of the eating of the meat, and on condition that a final bracha is recited as well.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89:1 ↩
2 The Taz (s"k 2) and the Minchas Yaakov (klal 76 s"k 3) wrote that those who have the minhag to wait one hour also require wiping and rinsing; however the Shach (s"k 7) wrote that it is not required. And see what the Pri Megadim wrote in the Siftei Daas ↩
3 The Tosfos Yom Tov wrote in Toras HaAsham (klal 76-77, din 1; the Machatzis HaShekel in siman 89 brought it on the words of the Rema): 'That one may say that if he did not wait the hour after he recited the bracha, but rather waited it before then, he must also rise and walk and wait a little and not remain in his place, for so the Mahari"l requires for the interruption on Shabbos when he wishes to eat the third seudah immediately after the morning one, as written in Hilchos Sukkah [brought in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe siman 3] ..' ↩
4 The Taz wrote (s"k 3): 'I do not know on what they relied in this, for the essence of the leniency is that they hold like the "there are those who say" that the Rema mentioned, which is the view of the Tosfos and the Ravyah as written above in the name of Mahara"i; and there it was mentioned explicitly in the Tosfos in this language: "but rather even immediately, if he cleared the table and recited the bracha it is fine" - end of quote. This implies that Birkas HaMazon is of no avail except when he has already removed himself from the meat seudah, whereas here they have not removed themselves from eating; on the contrary, they are preparing themselves for another eating, and if so Birkas HaMazon avails nothing at all. It emerges that they have nothing on which to rely, and they act against the words of the Talmud according to all the views; and one who fears the word of Hashem will refrain from sitting at one gathering with those who are not careful in this'. On the other hand the Pleisi (s"k 4) wrote: 'And I have not understood the reasoning of those who forbid, for the whole matter of not eating meat and cheese at one [seudah is] on account of a recognizable distinction, so that they should not eat meat and milk together; and what of it that he intends to recite the bracha in order to eat cheese afterwards - in the end there is a recognizable distinction. On the contrary, if his intention truly is [to eat more] and he only recites the bracha in order to eat cheese, that is all the more a recognizable distinction - and how would he eat them together? And even he cannot eat unless there is the interruption of Birkas HaMazon. Therefore I do not know what stringency there is in this'. And see what the Pri Megadim wrote in the Mishbetzos Zahav. The Darkei Teshuvah (s"k 18) brought from Chiddushei HaHafla'ah (os 2) that the whole stringency applies to one who wishes to continue eating bread, and consequently it is understood that he has not removed himself from the seudah ↩
5 Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin ch. 8 siman 9, and the Taz s"k 2 brought it ↩
6 Ibid. s"k 5 ↩
7 S.k. 6 ↩
8 YD siman 89:1 ↩
9 Ibid. in the Siftei Daas s"k 8 ↩
10 In a case of doubt whether six hours have already passed, the Yad Yehudah, Peirush HaAroch os 1, wrote to be stringent in the doubt and to wait until six hours have certainly passed; however the Darkei Teshuvah s"k 5 brought that there are those who wrote to be lenient in his doubt ↩
11 Klal 40 siman 13 ↩
12 YD siman 89:7 ↩
[4] (Halacha 933)
In the previous halacha we saw that in practice the halacha was accepted among Klal Yisroel like the words of the Rambam, that between meat and milk one must wait six hours.
Question: What is the reason for the wait of six hours?
Answer: Rashi wrote1: 'because meat gives off fat, and it sticks in the mouth and prolongs its taste'.
However the Rambam2 wrote: 'because of the meat between the teeth which is not removed by wiping'.
And the Meiri wrote3: 'And that which our fathers and our teachers had as a minhag in it .. once six hours have passed he eats cheese, even though he did not wipe his mouth and did not wash his hands after eating the meat that is between his teeth; for whatever is there at this measure has already been digested in its place and is not called meat. It was not said of meat between the teeth that it is called meat except within this time. And there are those who say that even after this time he must remove it before he eats cheese'.
And the Tur4 wrote: And even if he waited the measure, if there is meat between the teeth he must remove it, and within the time, even if there is no meat between the teeth it is forbidden, because the meat gives off fat and draws out taste for a long time; and according to this reason, if he did not eat it but only chewed it for an infant, he need not wait, for since he did not eat it, it does not give off taste. And the Rambam gave the reason for the waiting as being on account of the meat between the teeth, and according to his words, after he has waited the measure it is permitted even if meat remained between the teeth5, and one who chews for an infant must wait; and it is good to take hold of the stringencies of both reasons'.
[And to note that the Levush6 wrote: 'However, even if he waited the measure, if there is meat between the teeth he must remove it and rinse his mouth before he eats cheese; and within the time, even if there is no meat between the teeth it is forbidden, because the meat gives off fat and draws out taste for a long time. Therefore, even if he did not eat it but only chewed it for an infant, he must wait, for although he did not eat it, nevertheless the taste of the meat remains for him in his mouth and draws out for him the taste of the fat as if he had eaten'.
And the Shach7 raised a difficulty, that his words are the opposite of the Tur; however the Minchas Yaakov8 wrote to resolve it: 'Indeed, in the Mahari"l, in the laws of meat and milk, he too wrote like the language of the Ateres Zahav, and it is possible to say that a different version came to their hand in the Tur YD, as is copied in the Issur v'Heter klal 40 din 7, and these are its words: And the Tur YD wrote: but at that same seudah, even if there is no meat between the teeth, it is forbidden, as Rashi explained, that the meat draws out taste and gives off fat; and therefore one who chews for an infant must wait until another seudah - end of quote. And one may further say that even the Tur YD said only that for this reason one need not wait six hours, since it does not draw out taste so much, but nevertheless they must wait one hour as per the minhag, since in any case it draws out some taste; and this is the intention of the Levush and of the Mahari"l, and so it is somewhat implied from the language of the Mahari"l there. And as to the law, there is no practical difference in all of this, for we hold like the stringency of both reasons, as explained shortly'].
And the Ran wrote9: 'And nevertheless the matter appears that one who ate meat and waited somewhat and afterwards found meat between his teeth, does not require a wait of the measure of a seudah from that time when he removed the meat from there; rather we reckon the waiting time for him from the first eating. However, wiping the mouth, at any rate, it is implied that we do require'.
And as to the halacha, the Mechaber wrote10 like the ruling of the Tur, to be concerned for both reasons11: 'And even if he waited the measure, if there is meat between the teeth, he must remove it. And one who chews for an infant must wait'.
And the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And if he afterwards found meat between the teeth and removes it, he must rinse his mouth before he eats cheese'.
And the Shach wrote12: "and removes it". The Ran wrote that a wait of six hours is not required from that time when he removes it, but rather from the eating'.
And as to the reason that we are stringent like both views, the Pri Megadim wrote13: 'And we are stringent like the stringency of both explanations, and this is not like two mutually contradictory things and "וכסיל בחושך הולך" ("and the fool walks in darkness"), firstly, because it is possible that both explanations are true - for after six hours it is permitted, since presumably no meat has remained, and if there is, one must remove it; and furthermore, whatever we do out of doubt in the direction of stringency is not like two things contradicting one another'14.
Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote15 on the words of the Rema, that there are those who are meticulous to wait six hours after eating meat before cheese: 'It is possible that he was precise in this, that it is after eating that we are stringent, but after chewing, since in any case there are those who permit entirely, they do not wait six hours'.
However, in practice the Pri Megadim wrote16 that we are stringent for six hours even in a case where he only chewed a cooked dish that has fat in it: 'And know that if one chews for an infant a cooked dish that has fat in it, seemingly according to all the explanations he need not wait, for there is no drawing out of taste since he did not eat, and there is nothing between the teeth; nevertheless one should be stringent to wait six hours, on account of lo plug, and Yisroel are holy, and one should not breach a fence'.
However, in the glosses of the Gaon Rabbi Shlomo Kluger on the Pri Megadim17 he wrote: 'However, this is specifically one who chews, but one who tasted with his tongue and spat it out immediately, it appears that he need not wait according to all opinions, and there is no fence or safeguard in this at all ..'.
Accordingly, we saw that in practice we are stringent that even one who chews for an infant must wait six hours; and if after six hours he found meat between the teeth, he is obligated to remove it and rinse his mouth in order to eat dairy. However, the wait of six hours is calculated from the end of the original eating and not from the moment that he found further meat between the teeth. Also, one who chews a cooked dish that has meaty fat in it must wait six hours, unless he did not chew but only tasted and immediately spat it out.
--------------
Notes:
1 Chullin 105a ↩
2 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9 halacha 28 ↩
3 Chullin 104b ↩
4 YD siman 89 ↩
5 And see the Pri Chodosh s"k 2, and the Pleisi s"k 2 ↩
6 YD siman 89:1 ↩
7 Ibid. s"k 2 ↩
8 Klal 76 s"k 1 ↩
9 Chullin 37a of the pages of the Rif ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89:1 ↩
11 See the Taz s"k 1, and the Shach s"k 2 ↩
12 Ibid. s"k 3 ↩
13 Mishbetzos Zahav ibid. s"k 1 ↩
14 And see what the Yad Yehudah wrote in the Peirush HaAroch s"k 1 ↩
15 In the glosses on the words of the Rema in siman 1 ↩
16 Brought in the Yalkut Mefarshim at the end of the Shulchan Aruch ↩
[5] (Halacha 934)
In halacha number 930 we saw the words of the Gemara in Chullin1: 'Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yochanan: How much time must one wait between meat and cheese? He said to him: Nothing at all. Is that so? But Rav Chisda said: One who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese; cheese - he is permitted to eat meat! Rather, how much time must one wait between cheese and meat? He said to him: Nothing at all'.
And likewise we saw the words of Agra, 'that fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon', and we saw that the Rishonim differed in this law: that according to the view of Rabbeinu Tam it speaks of cheese after fowl, and even so this is permitted [as opposed to the meat of a beheimah], but in a case where he eats cheese first it is permitted to eat meat afterwards without performing any action; whereas according to the view of the Rambam, Agra spoke of a case where he eats fowl after cheese, where he need not perform any action, but if he eats the meat of a beheimah or a chayah he must perform kinuach and hadacha.
And as to the reason that meat after cheese is more lenient than cheese after meat, the Rashba wrote2: 'If he ate cheese and wished to eat meat, if it is night he wipes his mouth and washes his hands and eats immediately, for the cheese is soft and does not remain between the teeth'.
However we find that the Mahara"m of Rothenburg3 [and the Mordechai brought him4] was stringent in this law, with the meat of a beheimah, and these are his words: 'That you heard that I conduct myself not to eat the meat of a beheimah or a chayah after cheese, yet am lenient regarding the meat of fowl. In the days of my youth I would scoff at people who did so, and on the contrary, my teacher permitted it to me; it appeared in my eyes like heresy, until once, from one seudah to the next, I found cheese between my teeth; [I decreed] to be stringent [upon] myself regarding meat after cheese just as cheese after meat. And there is in this matter neither anything like disputing the Talmud, nor like one who adds and thereby detracts. In perek Kol HaBasar: I am in this matter like vinegar the son of wine, for my father, when he would eat meat today, would not eat cheese until the morrow, etc. - for each one may be stringent upon himself, to make a safeguard. And with the meat of fowl I am lenient, since the meat of fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon'.
And the Beis Yosef5 wrote: 'And there are those who are stringent upon themselves not to eat meat after cheese at one seudah, because it is written in the sefer HaZohar, parshas Mishpatim6, and these are its words: we find that anyone who eats this food which is joined together, whether in one hour or at one seudah, for forty days a kid is seen, praised in its hide, before those on high, and the impure retinue draws near to him, and he causes judgments to be aroused in the world - judgments that are not holy; and if he begets a son in those days, they lend him a soul from the other side, which is not holy - end of quote. And the Mordechai already wrote that the Mahara"m conducted himself not to eat the meat of a beheimah or a chayah after cheese .. And it is certain that he, of blessed memory, did not see the sefer HaZohar, and even so he was stringent upon himself on account of an incident that occurred; and although he was lenient with fowl, that is because he did not see the sefer HaZohar, but we, who have merited to see it, it is good and proper to be stringent even with the meat of fowl'.
The Rema in Darkei Moshe7 copied the words of the Beis Yosef; however the Maharsha"l8 disagreed with the Beis Yosef: 'And I do not know what he saw in the Zohar to be stringent with the meat of fowl, which is d'rabbanan according to the view of the Mahara"m. Also, as to what he wrote, that the Mahara"m did not see the Zohar - if so, [Rav Chisda] too, according to his words, did not merit to see the Zohar, for had he seen it he would not have written that one who ate cheese is permitted to eat meat after it. Rather, there is no proof from the Zohar, for it speaks of one who ate meat and afterwards cheese; and according to the explanation of Rabbeinu Tam and the Halachos Gedolos, who permit eating cheese after meat, even so they had no difficulty from the Zohar, for they explain that he eats meat and cheese without kinuach and hadacha, and so too is implied by the language that it said at the outset, that they eat together, etc.'.
Accordingly, we saw that there are those who wrote that after cheese it is permitted to eat meat without any action; and there are those who were stringent and wrote that all this is in order to eat the meat of fowl, but in order to eat the meat of a beheimah one requires washing and hadacha; and there are those who were stringent even with fowl after cheese.
Question: How was the halacha decided in this law?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote9: 'If he ate cheese, it is permitted to eat meat after it immediately, provided that he examines his hands that nothing of the cheese is stuck to them. And if it was at night, when he cannot examine them well, he must wash them. And he must perform kinuach of his mouth and rinse it. And the kinuach is that he chews bread and cleans his mouth with it well, and likewise with anything he wishes, except for flour and dates and vegetables, since they stick to the gums and do not clean well. And afterwards he should rinse his mouth with water or with wine. When do these words apply? With the meat of a beheimah or a chayah. But if he comes to eat the meat of fowl after cheese, he requires neither kinuach nor netilah'.
And the Rema wrote in the Hagah: 'And there are those who are stringent even regarding meat after cheese, and so is the minhag, that whenever the cheese is hard one does not eat after it even fowl, just as with cheese after meat. And there are those who are lenient. And one should not protest, only that they should perform kinuach and hadacha and netilas yodayim. Nevertheless it is good to be stringent'10.
The Sma, in a gloss on the words of the Rema, wondered at the Mechaber, who omitted this law: 'The Beis Yosef himself wrote so in the Tur OC siman 173, and therefore what he wrote here to be lenient is puzzling'.
Accordingly, we saw that although by the law of the Gemara it is permitted to eat meat after cheese (and there are those who required hadacha and kinuach), nevertheless, according to the Zohar and the stringency of the Rishonim, one should wait after eating the cheese before eating meat.
In the next halacha we shall see whether the waiting applies only to cheese or also to milk and the other products, and likewise how long the waiting is.
--------------
Notes:
1 105a ↩
2 Toras HaBayis HaKotzer, bayis 3 sha'ar 4, 86a ↩
3 Responsa, Prague edition, siman 615 ↩
4 Chullin remez 687 ↩
5 OC siman 173 ↩
6 125a ↩
7 YD siman 89, os 2 ↩
8 Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin perek 8, siman 6 ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 2 ↩
10 The Shach wrote (s"k 17): 'And the Maharsha"l there cried out against those who are stringent, that it is like heresy, and said that specifically the Mahara"m, to whom a stumbling block came on one occasion, was stringent, but one to whom no mishap came cannot be stringent, see there *for his words are not compelling, and on the contrary, in the words of the Mahara"m there the opposite is implied, see there and understand'* ↩
[6] (Halacha 935)
Question: How long must one wait after eating soft cheese?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Rema1 who wrote: 'And there are those who are stringent even regarding meat after cheese, and so is the minhag, that whenever the cheese is hard one does not eat after it even fowl, just as with cheese after meat. And there are those who are lenient. And one should not protest, only that they should perform kinuach and hadacha and netilas yodayim. Nevertheless it is good to be stringent'.
Accordingly, we have seen that he brought that there are those who are stringent regarding meat after cheese in general, but the minhag in practice is to be stringent only with hard cheese, and it is good to be stringent.
And we find in this matter differing views, as follows.
a) The Taz2 wrote: 'Meaning, to wait six hours, and the measure of hard cheese that the Rema mentioned is that six months have passed over it, or that it is wormy, so wrote the Issur V'Heter .. but it appears to me that specifically with wormy cheese one should be stringent thus, and it is by law, for the reason we mentioned; but with cheese that is old and is not wormy and was not made from milk that was curdled with rennet in order to congeal the milk, but rather was made from ordinary milk and dried out, or one who eats butter — one should not be stringent in this beyond kinuach and picking the teeth and rinsing the mouth and hands, except for one who conducts himself with additional abstinence and care; so it appears to me'.
Accordingly, according to the Taz in his understanding of the Rema, the minhag is to be stringent for six hours after hard cheese, but after soft cheese and the like kinuach and hadacha suffice. [And from the plain meaning of the words of the Taz it appears that they are stringent only because of the taste of the fat that remains, (and not on account of the words of the Zohar), and therefore he is stringent only with hard cheese and requires waiting six hours].
b) The Shach3 wrote on the words of the Rema to wait after hard cheese: 'And it is written in the sefer Metzaref L'Chochmah, folio 27a, that according to what was explained in se'if 1, that after eating meat the minhag is to wait one hour, if so it is possible that the Zohar too concedes that it forbade only within one seudah and within one hour, and examine this closely, end of his words; and the language of the Zohar in parshas Mishpatim implies so, see there'.
Accordingly, from the words of the Shach, who brought the Zohar in relation to the words of the Rema to be stringent with hard cheese, it appears that he holds that after hard cheese one must wait an hour (as per the minhag that the Rema brought in se'if 1 regarding cheese after meat), and it implies that for the other cheeses there is no minhag to be stringent.
c) The Pri Chodosh4 wrote: 'And to eat meat after cheese one should be stringent like the sefer HaZohar, and one should not eat except in two seudos and after having waited one hour'.
And from his words it is understood that according to the Zohar one must wait an hour after all dairy products. And so too the Shelah5 ruled in practice: 'To perform kinuach and hadacha well, and to make an interruption with birkas hamazon and to wait an hour, and afterwards he shall spread another tablecloth, and set the table and meat'.
d) However, there are those who understood in the Zohar that its intent is not to a literal hour, as the Pleisi6 wrote: 'The expression sha'ata means one period of time, and it is not defined by the hours of the world, but rather a period; and from midday until evening is likewise called sha'ata chada',
And see also what the Pri Megadim7 wrote: 'And the other Acharonim were stringent for six hours like the Zohar'.
And likewise regarding the conduct of the Arizal, it is written in Sha'ar HaMitzvos8: 'Concerning meat in milk it is written לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ("You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk"), my teacher, of blessed memory, conducted himself that on any day he ate cheese he would not eat meat until the night'.
And the Chida9 wrote: 'As we know that the early chassidim would wait one hour from cheese to meat, and there were those who conducted themselves with six hours10', and see there that he discusses the words of the Zohar and brings from the sefer Zohar HaRakia that one may explain in the words of the Zohar that one must wait six hours11.
Accordingly, according to this understanding of the Zohar it would appear that one must wait six hours after any cheese.
Accordingly, we have seen that the views are divided regarding the waiting after eating soft cheese before eating meat: there are those who wrote that kinuach and hadacha suffice, and there are those who wrote that one must wait an hour, and there are those who were more stringent, that according to the Zohar one must wait six hours. [And we saw the views that only with certain hard cheeses must one wait six hours after eating them, and we will see the details of this in the coming halachos], and in the next halacha we will see the minhag in practice.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch YD 89:2 in the Hagah ↩
2 s"k 4 ↩
3 s"k 16 ↩
4 Ibid. s"k 6. And see halacha no. 931 ↩
5 Maseches Shevuos, perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
6 Ibid. s"k 3 ↩
7 Eshel Avraham s"k 16 ↩
8 Parshas Mishpatim ↩
9 Shiyurei Berachah YD 89 s"k 6 ↩
10 And note what is written in Kaf HaChaim (YD 89 s"k 10), that the conduct of the Arizal too was only with hard cheese: 'And the Arizal conducted himself that on any day he ate cheese he would not eat meat until the night. Sha'ar HaMitzvos, end of parshas Mishpatim. *And it implies that this is specifically where he ate hard cheese, because there are those who are stringent with it like meat* as is written below in the Hagah, se'if 2; but where he ate soft cheese or drank milk or ate dairy foods there is no need to wait so long, but it suffices with washing the hands and kinuach of the mouth and rinsing the mouth, as is written below in se'if 2, see there' ↩
11 And note what is written in Chagoras Shmuel on the Levush (YD 89, os 18), that the words of the Zohar were said only concerning hard cheese, and these are his words: 'However, this is specifically with cheese that was made from milk that was curdled with rennet in order to congeal the milk and it is six months old, or with wormy cheese, which is likewise hard; and it is of this that the Zohar speaks, for they are hard and impart their taste for a long time like meat, and its law is like meat' ↩
[7] (Halacha 936)
In the previous halacha we saw differing views regarding the time of waiting after eating soft cheese (that is not hard).
Question: What is the minhag in practice?
Answer: It is explained in the words of the Magen Avraham1 and the Alter Rebbe2, regarding joining for a zimun, that in practice the minhag to be stringent and to wait is only after hard cheese, but with the other dairy items the practice follows the essential law; and so the Mishnah Berurah3 ruled.
Accordingly, according to them, with cheese that is not hard kinuach and hadacha suffice, and on this basis they were accustomed to suffice with kinuach and hadacha.
However, there are poskim who wrote that they were accustomed to wait half an hour, and they discussed how to explain the source of this minhag.
In the Mateh Reuven4 he wrote to explain that the measure of 'close to' in halacha is half an hour, as is explained in the Mishnah in maseches Shabbos, that a person should not sit down before the barber close to Mincha until he davens, and it is explained in the commentaries that this is half an hour before the time of Mincha — that is, that beyond half an hour it is not called 'close to'; and consequently people were accustomed to wait half an hour, for thereby it is already not called one seudah5.
And see also Teshuvos V'Hanhagos6, which mentioned this reasoning to explain the practice of half an hour: 'And in the Shach it is proven that a wait of an hour is required, (see there in the Pri Megadim), and so it is explained in the Gra (YD 89 s"k 11); and our minhag is to wait half an hour, which is the measure of mere "closeness", as we find in the law that close to Mincha one may not eat. But the language of the holy Zohar implies sha'ata chada as its plain meaning'.
However, the Rebbe rejected7 the reasoning of the Mateh Reuven: 'And the honor of the author remains in its place, for (at any rate — as he copied it in his letter) the essential proof is lacking, since with regard to eating dairy and meat I have not found — thus far — the expression "close to", but only "kachada, or b'sha'ata chada, or b'seudasa chada"'.
The Mishneh Halachos8 wrote that the reason for this practice is a kind of compromise: 'And it may be said that they relied on this: since in the Shulchan Aruch YD no waiting at all is required, and in the Zohar an hour is required, it is like a kind of compromise to wait half an hour; and further, because in the holy Zohar it is not explained that it is specifically an hour of ours, and perhaps the intent is a sha'ah, some period of time9, [and see Magen Avraham OC siman 240, d.h. "u'v'Bad.H.", and Yad Efraim there, that in the Zohar "sha'ata chada" is some period of time; and see Mateh Reuven siman 186, and his words require study.] So it appears to me, in my humble opinion, to find merit for those who are accustomed to only half an hour and wish to fulfill the view of the holy Zohar ..'.
And in practice we have already seen in the previous halacha that many poskim mentioned a wait of an hour, and understood that this too is the plain intent of the Zohar's 'b'sha'ata chada'; and see also in the Mishneh Halachos there: 'But in truth, in my humble opinion one should not be lenient in the matter, but rather one should wait one hour at the very least; and whoever sanctifies himself below, they sanctify him from above'.
And so too the Rebbe writes there: 'As to his question regarding our minhag with respect to eating meat after dairy foods, in general we conduct ourselves in the above — and even after milk and butter — to wait an hour (and also — not in the same seudah). And so it is written in the Shelah, his maseches Shevuos (180b). — (And as for what is written in the Darkei Teshuvah YD siman 89, end of s"k 19, "an hour and more", the measure of "and more" requires study, as does the source for it10) — but I have not heard whether this is a directive for all, or only the minhag of exceptional individuals; and see Pri Megadim on Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89, Sifsei Da'as s"k 7, that an interruption of an hour — takes the place of kinuach'.
Accordingly, we have seen that by the essential law kinuach and hadacha suffice after cheese, and there are those who are accustomed to wait half an hour after eating dairy before eating meat; but it is fitting to wait an hour, in accordance with the plain language of the Zohar, and such is the minhag in Chabad.
Notes:
1 OC siman 196 s"k 1 ↩
2 Siman 196, se'if 7 ↩
3 Ibid. s"k 9, and see also siman 494 s"k 16 ↩
4 Responsa, siman 186 ↩
5 And see Responsa Divrei Shalom, Tinyana, siman 71 ↩
6 Vol. 2, siman 390 ↩
7 Igros Kodesh vol. 20, p. 289 ↩
8 Responsa, vol. 6, siman 135 ↩
9 And see also Responsa Maharsha"g vol. 1, YD siman 13 ↩
10 At the conclusion of the letter the Rebbe writes: 'As to what is written in the aforementioned Darkei Teshuvah, to wait an hour and more — one may note from the measure of digestion, which is the walking of four mil (see the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch OC end of siman 184)'. Note also the words of the Kreisi U'Pleisi brought in halacha no. 931 ↩
[8] (Halacha 937)
Waiting after hard cheese
In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim disagreed regarding the time of waiting between ordinary cheese and eating meat, and that our minhag is to wait an hour.
Question: How long must one wait after hard cheese, and what is considered hard cheese?
Answer: In halacha number 934 we saw the words of the Mahara"m of Rothenburg1: 'And as to what my master asked, that you heard that I conduct myself not to eat the meat of a beheimah or a chayah after cheese, yet am lenient regarding fowl: in the days of my youth I would scoff at people who did so, and on the contrary, my teacher permitted it to me; it appeared in my eyes like heresy, until once, from one seudah to the next, I found cheese between my teeth; [I decreed] to be stringent [upon] myself regarding meat after cheese just as cheese after meat. And there is in this matter neither anything like disputing the Talmud, nor like one who adds and thereby detracts. In perek Kol HaBasar2: I am in this matter like vinegar the son of wine, for my father, when he would eat meat today, would not eat cheese until the morrow, etc. — for each one may be stringent upon himself, to make a safeguard. And with fowl I am lenient3, since fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon4'.
And it is written in the Issur V'Heter HaAruch5: 'But if he eats old cheese over which six months have passed, and likewise any (wormy) cheese — even though there is no prohibition in the matter, since it does not stick between the teeth, and even if it were to stick, it is certainly not called cheese in the way that meat between the teeth is called meat. Nevertheless, it is a measure of chassidus and abstinence, and it is proper for every ba'al nefesh not to eat meat after it in that seudah, even with kinuach and hadacha, because it too draws out its taste in the mouth for a long time, more than eggs fried in goose fat, after which people are careful not to eat cheese; and it turns out that he is eating the taste of meat and milk together, and it also appears as though he had eaten meat and milk together. And further, for it is written in the Mordechai, perek Kol HaBasar, that for this reason the Mahara"m, of blessed memory, himself decreed to be stringent regarding meat after cheese just as with cheese after meat, because once he found cheese between his teeth from one seudah to the next. However, there is at any rate no prohibition, for only the taste of the meat that is in the mouth is called taste, since its essence is called meat, and it is fitting to decree concerning it on account of meat in milk'.
[Except that regarding the time of waiting he wrote6: 'And the world was accustomed to wait (Hagahah) one hour of the twenty-four in a day, after birkas hamazon, and he then eats cheese even without kinuach; and he waits the hour even after eating the meat of a chayah or of fowl'.]
Accordingly, we have seen that in their view it is a measure of chassidus to wait after hard cheese, and it is explained in the Issur V'Heter that the stringency applies to cheese over which six months have passed, and likewise wormy cheese.
The Rema brought their words in the Darkei Moshe7: 'And so too many are accustomed not to eat meat after hard cheese that sticks between the teeth, just as one does not eat cheese after meat'.
And on this basis the Rema8 wrote in the Hagah: 'And there are those who are stringent even regarding meat after cheese, and so is the minhag, that whenever the cheese is hard one does not eat after it even fowl, just as with cheese after meat. And there are those who are lenient, and one should not protest, only that they should perform kinuach and hadacha and netilas yodayim. Nevertheless it is good to be stringent'.
And the Taz9 wrote: 'And the measure of hard cheese that the Rema mentioned is that six months have passed over it, or that it is wormy — so wrote the Issur V'Heter, and he wrote there that there is no prohibition regarding meat after cheese, for only the taste of meat that is in the mouth, since its essence is called meat, is it fitting to decree concerning it on account of meat in milk; nevertheless, from the standpoint of chassidus one should be careful, end quote. And it appears to me that (even) according to the reason of the Rambam that I mentioned at the beginning of the siman — that eating cheese after meat is on account of the meat between the teeth, but the taste drawn from the meat in the mouth does not concern us — it is possible to say here that with any cheese there is no prohibition to eat meat after it, for even with the meat between the teeth we would not have called it meat had the verse not revealed to us הבשר עודנו בין שיניהם ("the meat was still between their teeth"), as it appears in the Gemara; hence cheese that is between the teeth is not cheese at all10. And according to the reason I mentioned, that it is on account of the fat, it is obvious that one must forbid also with wormy cheese, whose taste is drawn out in the mouth for a long time, so one should be stringent. But it appears to me that specifically with wormy cheese should one be stringent thus, and it is by law, for the reason we mentioned; but with cheese that is old and is not wormy and was not made from milk that was curdled with rennet11 in order to congeal the milk, but rather was made from ordinary milk and dried out, or one who eats butter — one should not be stringent in this beyond kinuach and picking the teeth and rinsing the mouth and hands, except for one who conducts himself with additional abstinence and care; so it appears to me'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in the Mishbetzos Zahav: 'See the Taz: wormy cheese, and one who eats the worms — it is like meat, for it draws out its taste for a time; and likewise cheese curdled with rennet, which is sharp and strong (like the cheese they call Valachish kez), it is fitting to wait six hours, since it is salty and strong, having been curdled with rennet, and it draws out taste. And according to his words, cheese from a cow, even though it is hard and remains between his teeth, one need not wait, for cheese between his teeth is not called cheese ..'.
Accordingly, according to the Taz one must by law wait after wormy cheese, or cheese that was curdled with rennet, and the waiting is six hours, as explained in the previous halacha.
However, the Shach12 agreed with the Rema and wrote: 'That whenever the cheese is hard. And as a rule, if it is six months old it is considered hard, and so it is in Toras Chatas there, din 12'. And so the Pri Chodosh ruled.
That is, according to the Shach, cheese that has aged six months is considered hard, and one must wait an hour after it, as explained in the previous halacha.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in the Sifsei Da'as: 'See the Shach; and the other Acharonim were stringent for six hours like the Zohar. And the Pri Chodosh was lenient to eat fowl after cheese, see there in os 15. And they have already been accustomed to be lenient by means of clearing the table and birkas hamazon — and that is whenever the cheese is not hard; but with hard cheese it is fitting to be stringent for six hours'. And in the Mishbetzos Zahav there, on the Taz, he wrote: 'However, the Pri Chodosh disagrees and says that cheese between his teeth is likewise called cheese, see there; and so it is fitting to be stringent with hard cheese, see the Shach os 15'.
Accordingly, the Taz and the Shach disagreed as to whether one must be stringent with every hard cheese (the Taz is lenient in this), and whether one must wait six hours or an hour suffices (the Shach is lenient in this); and the Pri Megadim wrote that it is fitting to be stringent with every hard cheese and to wait six hours. And in the next halacha we will see the ruling regarding the cheeses that are common today.
Notes:
1 Responsa, Prague edition, siman 615 ↩
2 105a ↩
3 And see in the halacha there the words of the Beis Yosef OC siman 173: 'And it is certain that he, of blessed memory, did not see the sefer HaZohar, and even so he was stringent upon himself on account of an incident that occurred; and although he was lenient with fowl, that is because he did not see the sefer HaZohar, but we, who have merited to see it, it is good and proper to be stringent even with fowl' ↩
4 Ibid. 104b ↩
5 Sha'ar 40, siman 10 ↩
6 Ibid. siman 4 ↩
7 YD siman 89, os 2. And in Toras Chatas, klal 76-77, din 2 ↩
8 Shulchan Aruch YD 89:2 ↩
9 s"k 4 ↩
10 But see in the Pri Chodosh (s"k 16), who wrote: 'And even according to the reasoning of the Rambam, that the waiting is on account of the meat between the teeth, so too cheese that is between the teeth is called cheese, and not like the Taz' ↩
11 And see what the Chasam Sofer wrote in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch. Ibid. s"k 15 ↩
[9] (Halacha 938)
Waiting after hard cheese
We saw in the previous halacha that the Taz and the Shach disagreed as to whether one must be stringent with every hard cheese (the Taz is lenient), and likewise they disagreed as to whether one must wait six hours or an hour suffices (the Shach is lenient); and the Pri Megadim wrote that it is fitting to be stringent with every hard cheese and to wait six hours.
Question: What is the law in practice with the yellow cheeses that are common today — must one wait six hours after them?
Answer1: As we have seen, it is important to distinguish between the types of cheeses. a. There are cheeses that harden without a curdling agent. b. There are cheeses that harden with a curdling agent but do not dry out through a lengthy process of six months. c. There are those that dry out for six months. d. There are wormy cheeses2.
The ordinary yellow cheeses in Eretz Yisroel and in the United States are not aged six months. And the poskim of the last generation disagreed as to how one should conduct oneself with them, as follows:
Many poskim wrote that its law is the same as that of soft cheese, for: 1) The essential law of waiting depends on the production time of the cheese, and a cheese whose production process is less than six months does not require waiting six hours; and according to this, with yellow cheese there is no need to wait six hours. 2) The ordinary yellow cheese of today does not have a strong taste like the cheeses of which the poskim spoke, which were strong in their taste like the wormy cheeses. [And particularly according to what the Tosafos Yom Tov wrote in Toras HaAsham3 regarding the definition of hard cheese: 'After hard cheese. And its opposite is sweet, for that which is hard and was made soft, on the contrary, does not stick at all. Rather, the "hard" of which we spoke is that which is sharp, whose opposite is sweet; and because it is sharp and hard for a person to eat it, it is called hard'. That is, "hard" means that its taste is strong and it is hard for a person to eat it, and this certainly does not apply to yellow cheese.] 3) It does not remain between the teeth.
However, there are those who wrote to be stringent, and argued that the reasons for stringency that were said regarding hard cheese apply also to yellow cheese; for one reason the Taz wrote is that with cheese that was curdled with rennet, or is wormy, because of the fat its taste remains in the mouth. And a further reason we saw was on account of the concern for remnants of cheese between the teeth. If so: 1) Even yellow cheese, whose production process is rapid, one should be stringent with, since it is curdled by means of a starter culture (and it is not comparable to the words of the Taz regarding cheeses made from milk that dried out). 2) And there is still cause for concern that cheese will remain between the teeth. And although the Shach wrote that as a rule, if it is six months old it is considered hard, today, in the wake of the technology, even in less than six months they succeed in producing cheese that hardens and is able to remain between the teeth. Therefore, according to their argument, it is fitting to be stringent and to wait six hours after every hard cheese.
And there are those who wrote to be stringent because it is difficult to know, with any hard cheese, what exactly its definition is, and in how much time it was made, as is written in the Shevet HaLevi4: 'I too follow the way of being stringent in this, and my reason is that nowadays everything is sold in a store, and it has all kinds of cheeses — these that are less than six months and these that are more than six months — and one would need for this a timetable of when they were made, and this is impossible. Therefore we must be stringent with every hard one; for in any case I have found among the Acharonim that they incline to be stringent with a hard one even less than six months, and to be lenient with every soft one, even when it is somewhat salted and even when they place into it a few drops of a curdling agent, as is known'.
And there are those who held that one should instruct to wait an hour. As is written in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos5: 'Now, the Shach wrote that hard cheese is old cheese over which six months have passed. And the poskim of our time disagreed as to what the law is with yellow cheese and the other hard cheeses of our time, which by artificial means become hard within a very short time .. However, there are poskim who are stringent, and their reason is that today, by artificial means, it becomes hard like old cheese over which six months have passed, and therefore its law is that of hard cheese; and so the author of the Minchas Yitzchak ruled, that one must wait six hours in this. And in my humble opinion it appears that if he performed kinuach and hadacha (and as is the law of one who eats meat immediately after cheese, that he must perform kinuach and hadacha, as is explained in the Shulchan Aruch there, se'if 2) and waits an hour, he may be lenient to eat meat after yellow cheese and the other hard cheeses of our time, (for the view of the Shach is that after hard cheese it suffices to wait about an hour (for they rely on the minhag that the Rema brought, that they were accustomed that even with cheese after meat a wait of an hour suffices); and although we do not rule like the Shach, but rather we require waiting about six hours after hard cheese, nevertheless in the case at hand, which is a dispute as to whether its law is that of hard cheese, one may combine the view of the Shach and be lenient with the performance of kinuach and hadacha and a wait of an hour). But for myself I am stringent in this, to conduct myself like those who are accustomed to wait six hours. And there are those who are accustomed to wait about an hour, but are meticulous that, besides kinuach and hadacha, they also clean the teeth with a brush so that no cheese should remain between the teeth, (and we see something like this in the Taz there, s"k 4, who is lenient with hard cheese whose taste is not drawn out, for he holds that cheese between the teeth is not called cheese (and the other poskim disagreed with him); and nevertheless he wrote that besides kinuach and hadacha he should also perform picking of the teeth)'.
Accordingly, we have seen that the Acharonim disagreed regarding the law of the yellow cheeses found in Eretz Yisroel. And in practice it is fitting [that even those who are accustomed, after eating dairy, to suffice with cleaning and rinsing, and likewise those who are accustomed to wait half an hour — nevertheless] after yellow cheeses they should wait an hour6, and should clean the teeth7. And with cheeses whose taste is strong8, or that have aged six months9, one should be stringent to wait six hours.
--------------
Notes:
1 For a general survey of the views see the compendia Ohel Yaakov siman 89, os 47, and in the notes; Piskim U'Teshuvos siman 89, os 11, and in the notes ↩
2 Wormy cheeses are not found today, because of health problems, and in most countries the law forbids the sale of these cheeses ↩
3 Klal 76-77, din 2 ↩
4 Responsa, vol. 2, siman 35 ↩
5 Vol. 6, siman 171 ↩
6 For even if we are concerned that it is considered hard cheese, in the view of the Issur V'Heter — and so the Shach ruled — a wait of an hour suffices. And further, the words of the Pri Megadim to wait six hours are seemingly mainly on account of the stringency of the Zohar, and we saw in halacha 935 poskim who were stringent in accordance with the words of the Zohar, but wrote that the words of the Zohar are as their plain meaning, that one must be stringent for an hour ↩
7 See as above, that the Taz added picking of the teeth. *And indeed there are communities in which the practice to wait six hours has been accepted, and they should not deviate from their minhag* [And seemingly there is reason to be stringent upon oneself and to wait six hours, because (in addition to the fact that some wrote that the taste of yellow cheese too is drawn out) the stringency of the Mahara"m was on account of its remaining between his teeth from one seudah to the next; and it may be said that the Rema left his words unqualified and wrote "hard cheese" in order to include every cheese that might become stuck between the teeth, as the Pri Chodosh explained in s"k 16, that it too is considered cheese; and so is the implication of the Pri Megadim, as is written of his view in the Darkei Teshuvah siman 89 s"k 34: 'And see further in the Sifsei Da'as s"k 15, that his view appears to be so, that even if six months have not passed over it, whenever it is hard it is fitting to be stringent'. Rabbi Ch.A.Ch.] ↩
8 As above in the words of the Taz ↩
9 As above in the words of the Pri Megadim ↩
[10] (Halacha 939)
Waiting from liquid milk to meat
We saw in the previous halachos that by the essential law kinuach and hadacha suffice after cheese, but according to the words of the Zohar there are many who are accustomed to wait an hour. Likewise we saw that there are reasons to be stringent with hard cheese, and we saw that one of the reasons is based on an incident that occurred with the Mahara"m, that cheese became stuck between his teeth.
Question: Is there a leniency with regard to waiting after drinking milk?
Answer: It is written in the Tashbetz Katan1 regarding the conduct of the Mahara"m of Rothenburg: 'He does not eat any meat after cheese except the meat of fowl, but after milk he eats any meat'. And Rabbeinu Peretz wrote there in a gloss: 'However, the world was accustomed not to distinguish between cheese and milk, and they eat meat both after cheese and after milk by means of kinuach and hadacha, both the meat of fowl and other meat. End quote'.
Accordingly, we have seen that even the Mahara"m of Rothenburg, who was stringent upon himself, was stringent only after eating cheese and not after drinking milk; and the plain reason is that the stringency of the Mahara"m was because cheese became stuck between his teeth, and this does not apply with milk2.
And there are those who wrote that even according to the words of the mekubalim, that one must wait after eating dairy, this is specifically with regard to eating and not with regard to drinking, as is written in the Darkei Teshuvah3: 'And see in the sefer Yafeh LaLev vol. 8, who wrote that it is obvious that the Arizal too was stringent only with cheese and the like — a thick food, such as rice mixed with milk, which is something eaten, that he chews with his teeth, and to which the matter of drawing out taste applies; but where he drank milk merely by way of drinking, according to all opinions rinsing the mouth suffices if he wishes to eat meat afterwards, see there'.
And so it is written in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos4: 'However, it is possible that the essential stringency of the holy Zohar is specifically with something eaten, that is, a cooked dish of milk; but where one drinks milk as a beverage alone, it is possible that even according to the holy Zohar one may be lenient, that one need not wait an hour, for with milk he rinses and it suffices, (and something like this is written in the Rashash at the beginning of perek Kol HaBasar). But when he drinks it with mezonos, seemingly the milk sticks as it does in a cooked dish, and according to the words of the holy Zohar it would be fitting to wait an hour as with a cooked dish. And according to this it emerges that, by the essential law in practice, it is explained in the Shulchan Aruch that even one who eats a cooked dish or mezonos of milk is permitted meat immediately after kinuach and washing well, if he made a bracha and removed himself from the dairy. Nevertheless, one who is stringent to wait about an hour after eating a cooked dish or dairy mezonos, in accordance with the words of the holy Zohar, holy shall he be called. (See the Pri Megadim siman 89 in the Sifsei Da'as s"k 16.) Or at the very least he should wait half an hour, with kinuach or a proper cleaning of the teeth. But with the drinking of milk alone it is not our minhag to be so stringent, and it suffices with a bracha acharonah and a proper rinsing of the mouth; yet there are those who are accustomed to be stringent upon themselves even with milk alone, and to wait half an hour after it — but there is no need for this by law, as we have written'.
And so it is written in the Responsa Az Nidberu5: 'And there are those who say that after milk one need not wait at all (Darkei Teshuvah), and all the more so the drinking of coffee with milk; and it is permitted even within the seudah before eating meat, and this is permitted even for those who are stringent according to Kabbalah'.
But on the other hand there are those who wrote that the plain meaning of the words of the Zohar was said also with regard to drinking milk, as is written in the Kaf HaChaim6: 'However, see in the holy Zohar, parshas Mishpatim, folio 125a .. and it implies that there is no difference, that in every case one should not eat foods of meat and milk b'sha'ata chada or b'seudasa chada, even soft cheese or milk or dairy foods, and even the milk before meat; and we brought his words in OC siman 173, os 2, and we wrote there that every God-fearing person should be stringent upon himself, and upon others who listen to him, not to eat meat after cheese — even soft — or after dairy foods, or after he drank milk, until after one hour and another seudah, that is, until after he makes a bracha acharonah on that item that he ate, see there'. And it appears that this is the accepted minhag7, to wait also after liquid milk.
Accordingly, in practice, according to our minhag of waiting an hour between eating dairy foods and eating meat, we conduct ourselves so also after drinking milk or a dairy beverage.
Notes:
1 Siman 355 ↩
2 See Tashbetz Katan, Machon Yerushalayim edition, siman 355, note 167. And in the Mordechai HaShalem, Chullin, perek Kol HaBasar, note 19 ↩
3 Siman 89 s"k 2 ↩
4 Vol. 2, siman 390 ↩
5 Vol. 4, siman 42 ↩
6 YD siman 89 s"k 10 ↩
7 See also Piskim U'Teshuvos siman 89, note 127 ↩
[11] (Halacha 942)
We saw in the previous halachos the laws of waiting between eating cheese and meat and likewise the reverse.
Question: What else must one be careful about between the different foods?
Answer: The Gemara1 states: 'Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: Fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon; he taught it and he explained it: without washing the hands and without wiping the mouth. Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Mesharshiya happened to come to the house of Rav Ashi; they brought him cheese - he ate, they brought him meat - he ate, and he did not wash his hands. They said to him: But Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, taught: fowl and cheese are eaten with abandon - fowl and cheese, yes; meat and cheese, no! He said to them: That applies at night, but by day - I can see. It was taught in a beraisa: Beis Shammai say: he performs kinuach, and Beis Hillel say: he rinses. What is "he performs kinuach" and what is "he rinses"? .. Rather, Beis Shammai say: he performs kinuach, and the same law applies to rinsing; and Beis Hillel say: he rinses, and the same law applies to kinuach; this master said one thing and this master said one thing, and they do not disagree.
And Rashi wrote2 'that we require both of them'. And so too the Tosfos wrote there3: 'We require both of them, as the Kuntres explained, and so too Rabbeinu Chananel ruled'.
And further on the Gemara there4 states: 'The middle waters are optional. Rav Nachman said: They taught this only between one cooked dish and another cooked dish, but between a cooked dish and cheese, it is an obligation'.
And the Rashbam and Rabbeinu Tam differed in their understanding of the words of the Gemara, as the Tosfos wrote5: 'Rabbeinu Shmuel says that it speaks of both of them being of meat or both of them being of cheese; but between a cooked dish of meat and cheese that comes before him it is an obligation, whereas concerning cheese that comes after it he did not speak, for even with netilas yadayim it is forbidden to eat until another seudah, as it says above: one who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese. And this did not appear correct to Rabbeinu Tam .. And Rabbeinu Tam explains that "between one cooked dish and another cooked dish" means between a cooked dish of meat and a cooked dish of cheese, for since the meat and the cheese are not present in substance and there is only taste, they were not stringent to make it an obligation to wash his hands in between, and it is only optional; but between a cooked dish of meat and cheese, where the cheese is present in substance, it is an obligation. And this explanation is possible even according to the words of those who forbid eating cheese after meat at that same seudah even with netilah and kinuach'.
Accordingly, we saw in the words of the Gemara that one must clean the hands and the mouth between the different foods; except that, as we saw [also in halacha 930], the Rishonim differed as to whether the netilah, the kinuach and the hadacha were said after eating the meat, before eating the cheese (but after eating cheese one does not require both kinuach and hadacha before eating meat6), or whether after eating the meat one must wait, and the words of the Gemara regarding kinuach and hadacha were said after eating the cheese, before the meat.
And we saw in halacha 932 that the Mechaber ruled like the view that after eating the meat one must wait, and that the Rema wrote that such is the minhag. And as stated, according to this view the words of the Gemara regarding the need for netilah, kinuach and hadacha were said in a case where he ate cheese and wishes to eat meat.
Netilah
In the Gemara it is explained that although there is a need to wash his hands, by day, when he sees that his hands are clean, he need not wash his hands; except that the Rambam7 wrote: 'One who ate cheese or milk first, it is permitted to eat meat after it immediately, and he must rinse his hands8 and perform kinuach of his mouth between the cheese and the meat. And with what does he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruits that he chews and swallows or spits out; and with all things one may clean the mouth, except for dates or flour or vegetables, for these do not clean well'.
That is to say, the Rambam did not mention the leniency that one does not require washing of the hands by day9.
And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote10: 'But if he ate cheese first, it is permitted to eat meat at that very same seudah, provided that he washes his hands and performs kinuach of the mouth between the cheese and the meat; and since he sees that there is nothing of the cheese on the hands, it is permitted to eat without netilas yadayim; and the same law applies at night, if he has a good lamp; so it is plain'.
On the other hand, it is written in the glosses of Rabbeinu Peretz on the Semak11: 'Nevertheless it is proper to be stringent even by day, because at times the cheese is fatty and its moisture sticks to his hand even though it is not visible'.
Accordingly, we saw that the poskim differed as to whether, when a person sees his hands by daylight or by a good lamp, he must nevertheless wash his hands.
And as to the halacha, the Mechaber wrote12: 'If he ate cheese, it is permitted to eat meat after it immediately, provided that he examines his hands that nothing of the cheese is stuck to them. And if it was at night, when he cannot examine them well, he must wash them'.
However the Levush wrote13: 'Nevertheless the minhag is to wash them even by day, because at times the cheese is fatty and it sticks in the moisture of the hands and he is not aware of it'.
And the Shach wrote14: 'And Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that the same law applies at night, if he has a good lamp, that netilah is not required, and the Beis Yosef brings him in Orach Chaim there. And it appears that he was precise in saying "a good lamp", but with an ordinary lamp netilah is required, as is implied in the Shas and the poskim; and the Maharsha"l there siman 10 explained further that a good lamp means something like a torch. Nevertheless the Tur wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Peretz that they are to be washed even by day, because at times the cheese is fatty and it sticks in the moisture of the hands and he is not aware of it; and such is the view of the Acharonim, and so too the Ateres Zahav wrote, that such is the minhag'.
The law of one who eats with a spoon or with a fork
The Pri Chodosh15 wrote: And nevertheless it stands to reason that one who eats with a ladle, whether by day or by night, does not require netilah'.
But the Chagoras Shmuel on the Levush there16 wrote: 'And this does not appear correct in my humble opinion, for even though he eats with a ladle, it is impossible that nothing sticks to the hands'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote17: 'And nevertheless the proper course is to be stringent in a matter that involves no trouble'. And so too the Chida wrote18: 'And the minhag is plain, that even if they ate with a ladle they wash their hands'.
Accordingly, we saw that after eating cheese, before eating the meat, there is a need to wash the hands, and likewise also to clean the mouth. In the next halacha we shall see the details of the cleaning of the mouth, and whether this obligation applies also when one makes a wait of an hour.
Notes:
1 Chullin 104b ↩
2 Ibid. d"h v'hu hadin ↩
3 d"h mekaneiach v'hu hadin l'madiach ↩
4 105b ↩
5 Ibid. d"h lo shanu ↩
6 And within this very view the Halachos Gedolos wrote: 'And he must wash his hands and his mouth in between'. And in Tosfos in the name of the Halachos Gedolos and Rabbeinu Tam: 'If he ate cheese it is permitted to eat meat even without netilah and kinuach' - except that even in his words it is explained in Tosfos that his intention is: 'And one must say, according to his explanation, that with regard to netilas yadayim there is no distinction between meat first and cheese first, and it is specifically with regard to kinuach that there is a distinction'. And see also Derishah OC siman 173: 'And the Tosfos and the Rosh .. and they wrote that one must say that what the Halachos Gedolos wrote, that one who ate cheese may eat meat without hadacha and kinuach, means that both of them are not required, but hadacha at any rate is required; and such is the view of Rabbeinu [the Tur] in what he wrote in the name of the Halachos Gedolos "without kinuach and hadacha", that his meaning is that kinuach and hadacha together are not required' ↩
7 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9, halacha 26 ↩
8 And the Kesef Mishneh wrote: 'Rabbeinu explains that "he rinses" which is taught means the rinsing of his hands, and there is support for this explanation .. And the world has the minhag to act in accordance with the words of them all, to rinse the mouth and also the hands' ↩
9 And the Kesef Mishneh wrote: 'And I do not know why Rabbeinu omitted that which Rav Yitzchak the son of Rav Mesharshiya said, that by day one need not rinse his hands between cheese and even the meat of a beheimah'. But the Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos HaTur, YD siman 89, os 21, wrote: 'And it appears in my eyes that the Rambam holds that the answer of Rav Yitzchak, that this applies at night, is not the halacha, for we reject the words of Rav Yitzchak before those of Rav Nachman, who said "but between a cooked dish and cheese it is an obligation" - and its explanation is between the cooked dish of now and the cheese of before, according to the view of the Rambam; and he said "an obligation" and did not distinguish between day and night, which implies that one should not make such a distinction. And as for the words of the other commentators, who do distinguish between day and night, see what I wrote in the Hagahos Beis Yosef, with the help of Heaven' ↩
10 Toldos Adam V'Chavah nesiv 15, os 28, 137a ↩
11 Mitzvah 213, os 7 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 2. Likewise the Mechaber wrote regarding the netilah of the middle waters in OC siman 173, and it will be brought, with the help of Heaven, in the coming halachos in the discussion regarding the waiting and the washing after a cooked dish of meat ↩
13 YD siman 89 se'if 2 ↩
14 Ibid. s"k 9 ↩
15 Ibid. s"k 9. And the Aruch HaShulchan brought him there se'if 8: 'And likewise if he did not eat with his hands but rather with a spoon or with a ladle or with a fork, he need not wash his hands [Pri Chodosh]'. And see also the Rashash at the beginning of perek Kol HaBasar ↩
16 Os 25 ↩
17 Siftei Da'as s"k 20 ↩
18 Shiyurei Berachah ibid. s"k 15 ↩
[12] (Halacha 943)
Kinuach
In the previous halacha we saw the words of the Gemara that one must perform kinuach between dairy and meat.
> Question: What is considered kinuach?
Answer: The Gemara in Chullin1 states: 'The matter itself: Rabbi Zeira said: There is no kinuach of the mouth except with bread; and this applies to wheat bread, but not to barley bread. And with wheat bread too, we said this only regarding cold bread, but hot bread smears; and this applies to soft bread, but not to hard bread. And the halacha is: with all things kinuach may be performed, except for flour, dates and vegetables'.
Kinuach with flour
And the Rambam2 wrote: 'And with what does he clean his mouth? With bread or with fruits that he chews and swallows or spits out; and with all things one may clean the mouth, except for dates or flour or vegetables, for these do not clean well'.
However, the Tur3 wrote: 'And the kinuach is that he chews bread and cleans his mouth with it well, or with anything else except for barley flour, because it is soft and sticks to the teeth; and likewise not with dates or vegetables. And after the kinuach he should rinse his mouth with water or with wine'.
And in practice the Mechaber4 wrote: 'And the kinuach is that he chews bread and cleans his mouth with it well, and likewise with anything he wishes, except for flour and dates and vegetables, since they stick to the gums and do not clean well. And afterwards he should rinse his mouth with water or with wine. When do these words apply? With the meat of a beheimah or a chayah. But if he comes to eat the meat of fowl after cheese, he requires neither kinuach nor netilah'.
But the Levush5 wrote: 'And the kinuach is that he chews bread and cleans his mouth with it well. And the same law applies to eating another food, except for barley flour, because it is soft and sticks to the teeth and does not clean'.
And the Tosfos Yom Tov wrote in Malbushei Yom Tov6: 'Except for barley flour. Such is the wording of the Tur, but this does not appear correct to me from the Gemara, for it speaks without qualification; and earlier than that, when they distinguished with regard to bread, they said specifically barley — but that does not stand as the halacha. And also in Tur YD siman 89 he did not write barley, and likewise in the Shulchan Aruch'.
And so wrote the Divrei Chamudos7: 'The Tur in OC siman 173 wrote that it is specifically barley flour, and Rabbi Mordechai Yaffe followed him there in his Levush; but this does not appear correct to me, for we do not find in the Gemara that it distinguishes between barley and wheat, other than at the outset, upon what Rabbi Zeira said, that there is no kinuach of the mouth except with bread — but according to the conclusion they said flour without qualification, and it implies that no flour is valid — and the Rambam too wrote flour without qualification and did not mention any distinction between barley and wheat, and in Tur YD as well he did not distinguish'.
The Shach8 also objected to the Levush: 'Except for flour. So wrote the Tur, and it implies that with any flour there is no kinuach, and so it implies in the Asheri and in all the poskim. And it is astonishing regarding what is written in Tur OC, except for barley flour. And furthermore, in the Gemara at the beginning of perek Kol HaBasar it is explicitly implied that with any flour it is forbidden, see there. And the matter is obvious that it is a scribal error in the Tur there; and the Levush there did not notice this and wrote like the wording of the Tur there'9.
Therefore, in practice one should not perform kinuach with flour of any kind whatsoever, and not only with barley flour.
Kinuach with fruits
In the Rambam, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch it was mentioned not to perform kinuach with dates; however, the Shiltei Giborim10 wrote: 'And my grandfather the Rav says that the other fruits too are like dates, and the other poskim do not rule so'.
And the Knesses HaGedola11 wrote: 'It is written in the Shiltei HaGiborim in the name of the Riaz, who wrote in the name of his grandfather the Rav, that the other fruits too are like dates; and it is written in sefer Sheiris Yehuda12, and the other poskim do not concede this, end quote. And so wrote the Rambam in perek 9 of Hilchos Maachalos Asuros: and with what does he clean his mouth — with bread or with fruits, etc.; and so it also appears from the sugya of the Gemara, which states without qualification that with all things there is kinuach of the mouth except for dates, which is not kinuach, etc.'13.
Therefore one may perform kinuach with all fruits except for dates
> Question: May one spit out the food with which the kinuach was performed?
Answer: The Pri Toar14 wrote: 'And if he chewed it in his mouth and spat it out, it is not called kinuach until he swallows it; and this is obvious'.
But the Pri Megadim15 commented on his words: 'And know that the Pri Toar in os 7 wrote that the kinuach requires specifically that he swallow, and not that he chews and spits out. And I am astonished, for in ר"מ the opposite is explained — he swallows or spits out, see there. And likewise is the implication of the Mechaber, he chews — evidently the kinuach is by chewing, as we have said'.
However, the Chida16 wrote: 'But I have seen in the Knesses HaGedola, Hagahos HaTur os 25, that he brought the manuscript version of the Rambam, in which it is written that he chews them or swallows them. See there. And it is proved that in the manuscript Rambam it was not written "or spits them out"'.
In practice, however, the Pischei Teshuva17 wrote: 'And nevertheless, l'chatchilah one must in any case swallow, and it is forbidden to spit out because of hefsed ochlin see OC siman 172'.
Therefore we have seen that after eating dairy, in addition to rinsing the mouth and the hands, one must clean the mouth well. In the past they would clean the mouth by eating a solid food, and we have seen several details in this. Today, when one brushes the teeth with a brush, this is considered kinuach. In addition, hadacha is also required, and we will see the details in the next halacha.
--------------
Notes:
1 105a ↩
2 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9, halacha 26 ↩
3 OC siman 173 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 2 ↩
5 OC siman 173 se'if 1 ↩
6 os 1 ↩
7 Chullin perek 8, siman 5, os 22 ↩
8 Ibid. s"k 12 ↩
9 In the Knesses HaGedolah (הגה"ט, YD siman 89 os 27) he wrote: 'And it appears to me that ריב"ה [=Rabbi Yaakov Baal HaTurim] held that when we say in the Gemara, and the halacha is that with all things kinuach may be performed except for flour — they did not come to exclude what the Gemara distinguished between wheat and barley, for that distinction stands in its place; they came only to exclude the words of Rabbi Zeira, who said that there is no cleaning of the mouth, but rather only that which is in the mouth is kinuach. To this they said that with all things there is kinuach of the mouth, except for flour, dates and vegetables; and when they said except for flour, it is of barley that they were speaking, but not of all wheat. And this is forced, and it requires study' ↩
10 Chullin 37b of the pages of the Rif, os 1 ↩
11 Ibid. os 28 ↩
12 The Chida (Shiyurei Berachah s"k 17) noted that this is from the words of the Riaz himself ↩
13 The Chida wrote in Shiyurei Berachah (YD siman 89 s"k 17): 'The Riaz, brought in the Shiltei HaGiborim, wrote in the name of Rabbeinu Yeshaya that the other fruits too are like dates. But in truth, from the Shas (105a) the opposite is implied: for if it were as he says, in place of dates it should have said fruits — and why did it specify dates? Rather it implies that fruits are effective, apart from dates. And I have since seen that the Rav Dina D'Chayei raised this very difficulty against him, Lavin 141, daf 131b. And in the Knesses HaGedolah the Rav wrote it in another manner: that the sugya of the Gemara states without qualification that with all things there is kinuach except for dates, etc. And in this vein it may be rejected, for one does not learn from general statements. And likewise the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayis daf 83b (87, end of column 1) wrote: and with all things there is kinuach, except for dates and vegetables and beets (it appears it should read flour) *and their like*, end quote. So the Ra'ah wrote "and their like" — for certainly, if we know that there is something with which one does not clean well, we do not perform kinuach with it; for although it is not mentioned in the Shas, he said they and their like, and one does not learn from general statements. However, what is difficult upon the Rav Rabbeinu Yeshaya is that he took dates, whereas it should have said fruits, as is written in Dina D'Chayei .. And it appears that the reason the Riaz did not raise upon his grandfather the Rav the difficulty from the Shas as we have, is because it may be said that since in Bavel dates were very common and they were regularly accustomed to them, therefore he took dates, for to them these are the principal fruits, and the same applies to the other fruits; and it was obvious to the Shas that no distinction is to be made between dates and other fruits, and therefore it took the fruit that is usual and very common. And this will be the view of his grandfather the Rav; and therefore he came upon it only from the side that the other poskim do not rule so' ↩
14 Ibid. s"k 7 ↩
15 Siftei Daas ibid. s"k 12 ↩
16 Shiyurei Berachah ibid. s"k 16 ↩
17 Ibid. s"k 5 ↩
[13] (Halacha 944)
In the previous halachos we saw the explanation of the words of the Gemara1 'he rinses' according to the view of the Rambam, that between cheese and meat one must wash the hands, and likewise we saw that one must perform kinuach of the mouth.
> Question: Must one also rinse the mouth, and how?
Answer: Rashi there explained the words of the Gemara there, 'he rinses', as referring to rinsing the mouth, and these are his words: 'If you say that Beis Shammai say he performs kinuach — of his mouth. And he does not rinse — with water, for the kinuach is better than the hadacha, and hadacha was not mentioned here. And Beis Hillel say he rinses and does not require kinuach — for kinuach alone does not suffice for him; rather he rinses with water, and that is the essential thing, and kinuach is not required'.
And we have already seen [in halacha 942] that Rashi wrote that in halacha both of them are required, both the hadacha and the rinsing.
And on this basis the Tur wrote in Yoreh Deah2: 'And afterwards he should rinse his mouth with wine or with water'.
However, the Tur in Orach Chaim3 wrote: 'And after the kinuach he should rinse his mouth with water or with wine [two times]'.
And the Bach wrote: 'And in other sefarim it is written: or he should rinse his mouth with water or with wine two times, and the Maharsha"l wrote (in his glosses to the Tur) that so it was emended from the precise sefarim4, and it may be said accordingly that he compares it to netilas yadayim, where we require that the second water remove the moisture of the first, impure water; and so it is with regard to the rinsing with water after the meat has remained in its salt, where we require two times, for we require that the second remove the moisture of the first water'.
And so wrote the Prishah5: 'And in any case a reason may be given for what he wrote, two times: that it is similar to the rinsing of meat after salting, and to netilah, where two waters are required — the second to rinse away what remains of the first, which have absorbed issur or tumah; and the same law applies here too, and this is easily understood'.
And in halacha the Mechaber6 wrote: 'And afterwards he should rinse his mouth with water or with wine'.
However, several poskim7 brought the Damesek Eliezer8, who wrote: 'And in any case it is explained from the words of the Semag and the gloss in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that the rinsing of the mouth is not specifically with water, but the same law applies with wine, and it is possible that the same applies with all beverages; and netilas yadayim too is not specifically with water, but the same applies with wine and with all beverages, even though with regard to kinuach of the mouth it was stated in the Gemara'.
Therefore, in practice, after the kinuach one must wash the mouth with water or wine or with other beverages.
> Question: May one perform the hadacha before the kinuach, or perform the kinuach and the hadacha together?
Answer: The Mahara"m of Rothenburg9 wrote: 'And as to what you asked, which of them comes first, the kinuach of the mouth or the hadacha — certainly there is no particularity at all ..'.
And in the Hagahos Maimoniyos10 it is written: 'And the Mahara"m wrote that one need not be precise as to which of them he does first, and Sefer HaMitzvos wrote that the practice of the Ritzva was that after rinsing his hands and his mouth he would insert his finger into his mouth and check well that nothing remained in his mouth, and afterwards he would perform the kinuach of the mouth with bread; but Rabbeinu Yitzchak the Elder was accustomed to soak bread in water and eat it, and it counted for him for the kinuach and the hadacha of the mouth; or he would eat something with which one performs kinuach and afterwards drink water or wine, and so wrote Rabbeinu Shmuel'.
Therefore we have seen that according to the view of the Mahara"m it makes no difference which one does first, the hadacha or the kinuach, and that the minhag of Rabbeinu Yitzchak was to perform this action all at once, by eating bread dipped in water.
However, the Tur there wrote: 'And afterwards he should rinse his mouth with wine or with water11, and there are those who are accustomed to soak bread in wine or in water and eat it, and it counts for the kinuach and the hadacha; but it is better that each one be done by itself'12.
That is to say, from the wording of the Tur it appears that one must perform the kinuach and only afterwards the hadacha; however, the Beis Yosef13 wrote: 'And the Hagahos Maimoniyos wrote in the name of the Mahara"m that one need not be precise regarding the kinuach of the mouth and the hadacha; rather, whichever of them he wishes he may do first, end quote. And it is possible that although Rabbeinu [=the Tur] wrote here and in sefer Yoreh Deah that he should perform kinuach of his mouth and afterwards rinse it, this is not specifically so, for the same law applies if he did the reverse, and it is fine'.
The Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch copied the wording of the Tur, 'and afterwards he should rinse', and the Shach14 wrote on his words: 'And he must perform kinuach of his mouth and rinse it. And the Hagahos Maimoniyos wrote in the name of the Mahara"m that one need not be precise regarding the kinuach of the mouth and the hadacha, but whichever of them he wishes he may do first, end quote, and the Beis Yosef brings him there'. And so he wrote further on in his words15: 'This is not specifically so, for the same law applies if he does the hadacha first, as I wrote in seif katan 11; and so the Beis Yosef himself wrote in Orach Chaim there on the wording of the Tur, which is like the wording of the Mechaber'.
But the Knesses HaGedola16 wrote, and the Chida17 brings him: 'And nevertheless it appears to me that although with regard to the law there is no concern as to which of them comes first, it is proper to perform the kinuach before the hadacha, because the kinuach, which is with a hard substance such as bread and the like, may leave some crumbs in the mouth, and for this the hadacha comes at the end, so that if perhaps crumbs remain, the hadacha rinses everything away. And it is possible that for this reason ריב"ה wrote and afterwards he should rinse, etc. — that he is teaching us good counsel; and רב"י followed him in his holy sefer'.
The Mechaber did not address the minhag of Rabbeinu Yitzchak the Elder to perform both actions together; however, the Levush18 and the Pri Megadim19 brought the words of the Tur: 'And there are those who are accustomed to soak bread in water or in wine and eat it, and it counts for them for the kinuach and the hadacha, but it is better that each one be done by itself'.
Therefore we have seen that one must rinse the mouth after the kinuach. [And when one brushes the teeth and rinses the mouth with water, this is kinuach and hadacha].
--------------
Notes:
1 Chullin 105a ↩
2 siman 89 ↩
3 siman 173 ↩
4 In the Tur, Shiras Devorah edition, in the Hagahos V'He'aros os 7, they wrote that so it is printed in the Mantua and Salonika printings. And the Derishah wrote (OC siman 173 os 6): 'And it would seem that there is a scribal error here, for it was written בפ"ע in initials, meaning בפני עצמו — that is to say, that he should perform the rinsing of his mouth and the kinuach each one by itself, as he wrote in YD'. And see what the Knesses HaGedolah wrote (הגה"ט, YD siman 89 os 31); but in the body of the text it was brought that the Maharsha"l too testified to such a version ↩
5 Ibid. os 8 ↩
6 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 2 ↩
7 Knesses HaGedolah הגה"ט, YD siman 89 os 29; the Chida in Shiyurei Berachah ibid. s"k 21. Chochmas Adam klal 40 os 12 ↩
8 Chullin 105a, os 27 ↩
9 Shu"t, Prague edition, siman 531 ↩
10 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9, halacha 26, os 2. And in this vein the Semag wrote, Lavin siman 140. And see also Or Zarua vol. 1, Hilchos Basar b'Cholov siman 460 ↩
11 And the Levush explained (ibid. se'if 2): 'There are those who say that he should not switch, to put the hadacha before the kinuach, for the hadacha is of no avail at all while the taste of the cheese fat is still in his mouth, since the hadacha does not nullify the taste of the cheese fat; therefore he must perform the kinuach first, to clean the mouth of the taste of the cheese fat and to nullify it, and afterwards to rinse away the remainder of the crumbs of cheese that have remained in his mouth — which a hadacha would not have availed to do thus before the kinuach, for before the kinuach the crumbs remain stuck in the cheese fat that is in his mouth ..' ↩
12 However, see the Knesses HaGedolah there, osiyos 29, 30, who wrote at length to explain that the minhag of Rabbeinu Yitzchak was because he was in doubt as to which must be done first, and therefore he deliberately conducted himself so, in order to fulfil the obligation according to them all ↩
13 OC siman 173 ↩
14 Ibid. s"k 11 ↩
15 s"k 13 ↩
16 Ibid. os 29 ↩
17 Shiyurei Berachah ibid. os 20 ↩
18 Ibid. se'if 2 ↩
19 Ibid., Siftei Daas s"k 11 ↩
[14] (Halacha 945)
In the previous halachos we saw that by the law of the Gemara, after eating cheese one must clean the hands and the mouth from the remnants of the cheese, and afterwards one may eat meat. But we saw that according to the words of the Zohar it is customary to wait between the eating.
Question: Are those who are accustomed to wait after eating cheese also obligated in kinuach and hadacha, or does the waiting render the cleaning unnecessary?
Answer: With regard to the reverse situation, of eating cheese after meat, the poskim disagree as to whether waiting an hour exempts one from kinuach and hadacha or not, as follows:
In halacha number 931 we saw that in Ashkenaz they were accustomed to wait an hour after eating meat, and the Rema wrote in the Simanim of Toras Chatas1: 'One who ate meat — whether the meat of a beheimah, a chayah or fowl — is forbidden to eat cheese after it, and the minhag is to wait one hour in between and to recite a bracha in between; and there is no difference whether he waited the hour before he recited the bracha or after he recited it; and in any case kinuach of the mouth is required'.
And so wrote the Taz2: 'And it is an obvious matter that one who conducts himself with this leniency of waiting one hour also requires kinuach and hadacha, as was mentioned in the words of the "there are those who say" of the Rema, from which this leniency was drawn'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in Mishbetzos Zahav (that l'chatchilah one must wait six hours, as is our minhag; however, regarding those who are accustomed to suffice with waiting one hour): 'And one who is not a ben Torah and is lenient with one hour — in any case he requires hadacha and kinuach of the mouth, for this leniency was drawn from Tosafos, that another seudah means Birkas Hamazon, which the Rav brought in the gloss; and not like the Shach in os 7, who distinguishes with regard to waiting one hour, that kinuach is not required. And one who examines the Darkei Moshe, who brought the wording of the Mahara"i, sees that it implies that waiting an hour is a stringency and not a leniency, and this indicates like the Taz'.
Therefore, according to the view of the Rema in the Simanim of Toras Chatas, and the Taz, and the Minchas Yaakov3, and likewise the agreement of the Pri Megadim, waiting an hour after eating meat does not exempt one from kinuach and hadacha.
However, the Shach4 wrote that waiting an hour does replace the kinuach and the hadacha, and that so it is explained in the Issur V'Heter HaAruch5, who wrote: 'And the world is accustomed to wait (gloss) one hour of the twenty-four of the day after Birkas Hamazon, and he then eats cheese even without kinuach, and he waits the hour even after eating the meat of a chayah or fowl'.
And these are the words of the Shach: 'But certainly, if he did not find meat between his teeth, the minhag is that waiting an hour suffices, even without kinuach and hadacha, and so it is written in the Issur V'Heter there, din 4, and the Toras Chatas brings him as a halachic ruling6, and so it appears. And that which the Rav wrote, that there are those who say that immediately, if he cleared and recited the bracha, it is permitted by means of kinuach and hadacha — implying that kinuach and hadacha are in any event required — that refers to one who comes to eat immediately after he cleared and recited the bracha. And the words of the Lechem Chamudos (daf 218a) are not understood by me in this'.
And the Pri Megadim wrote in Siftei Daas: 'The Shach wrote that with waiting an hour kinuach and hadacha are not required, unlike the Taz in os 2 .. And it is possible that the Shach holds that certainly those who are accustomed to wait an hour follow the reasoning of Tosafos, that from seudah to seudah it is permitted immediately, and even so kinuach is required; and their waiting an hour stands in place of the kinuach, for then the taste no longer lingers'.
Therefore the Pri Megadim wrote that the view of the Shach is that since they held that by the essential law kinuach and hadacha suffice, only that they were stringent to wait an hour in place of kinuach, this is also effective in place of kinuach and hadacha.
Now, all of this is with regard to waiting after meat; but on this basis there are those who wrote7 that according to the words of the Shach, that waiting an hour is effective in place of kinuach and hadacha, the same law applies also between cheese and meat, since by the essential law kinuach and hadacha suffice, and consequently waiting an hour constitutes a substitute for kinuach and hadacha.
However, apart from the fact that we have already seen that many acharonim disagreed with the Shach with regard to meat and milk, there are those who wrote explicitly that also with regard to waiting after cheese, waiting an hour is not a substitute for kinuach and hadacha8, as the Shelah9 wrote: 'Particularly on such a holy day as this, which is the giving of our Torah, to perform kinuach and hadacha well, and to make an interruption with Birkas Hamazon and to wait an hour, and afterwards he should spread another cloth, and set the table and meat'.
Therefore it is explained in the Shelah that waiting an hour is not a substitute for kinuach and hadacha; rather, both hadacha and kinuach and also waiting an hour are required.
And it is to be noted that the Rebbe10 writes: 'As to his question regarding our minhag with regard to eating meat after dairy foods: in general we conduct ourselves in the above — and even after milk and butter — to wait an hour (and also — not in the same seudah). And so it is written in the Shelah, in his Maseches Shavuos (180b) .. But I have not heard whether this is a directive for all, or only the minhag of exceptional individuals, and see the Pri Megadim on the Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89, Siftei Daas seif katan 7, that an interruption of an hour replaces kinuach'.
There are those who understood that the Rebbe intends to rule like the Shach, that waiting an hour is a substitute for kinuach and hadacha; however, this understanding does not settle well for many reasons11, and therefore it is more reasonable that the Rebbe comes only to note that there is an advantage in waiting an hour, since we find an opinion that waiting an hour can be a substitute for kinuach and hadacha; but it is not the Rebbe's intention that in practice those who wait an hour need not perform kinuach and hadacha.
Therefore, in practice, after eating dairy and before eating meat, kinuach and hadacha are required, also according to our minhag of waiting an hour12.
--------------
Notes:
1 Klal 76-77, din 1 ↩
2 YD siman 89 s"k 2 ↩
3 On the Toras Chatas ibid. s"k 3 ↩
4 Ibid. s"k 7 ↩
5 Sha'ar 40, siman 4 ↩
6 However, see the Minchas Yaakov (ibid. s"k 3): 'Even though the Rav copied here the words of the Issur V'Heter, nevertheless his view is not so as regards the halachic ruling, and so the Rav wrote explicitly in the Simanim further on, in this din' ↩
7 Devash V'Chalav — MiDvash Lefi ch. 8, os 16. Pesakim U'Teshuvos YD siman 89 os 10 ↩
8 And see the Yad Yehudah (Peirush HaAroch siman 89 s"k 2), who wrote a reason that with cheese there is more ground to be stringent regarding kinuach, and this is his language: 'But after cheese, since they did not institute from the outset to make an interruption between them, consequently even if one does sometimes interrupt, since it is not part of the essence of the takanah it is of no avail, and everything depends on kinuach and hadacha, v'dok' ↩
9 Maseches Shevuos, perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
10 Igros Kodesh vol. 20, p. 289 ↩
11 In his letter the Rebbe discusses mainly whether one must wait an hour or half an hour, and seemingly he did not come to decide the dispute of the Taz and the Shach, nor did he cite their words ↩
12 And to note that for those who are accustomed to wait half an hour, it is written in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos vol. 2 siman 390 that kinuach and hadacha are likewise required. And so it is written in Pesakim U'Teshuvos there ↩
[15] (Halacha 947)
In halacha number 932 we saw that between eating meat and milk, apart from the waiting one must also recite Birkas Hamazon [a bracha achrona], and without this the waiting will not be effective.
> Question: May one eat meat after dairy immediately in the same seudah, or must one separate between them with Birkas Hamazon [apart from kinuach, hadacha and waiting]?
Answer: As is known1, the minhag of Yisroel is Torah to eat dairy foods on Shavuos; and on the other hand one must also eat meat because of the simchah of Yom Tov. And there were those who were accustomed to eat in one seudah dairy at its beginning and afterwards meat. And it is written in Zikaron Moshe [by a talmid of the Rema and the Maharsha"l]2: 'Those who are accustomed to eat dairy foods and meat in one seudah on Shavuos — a reason may be given for this, since it is the giving of the Torah and it is fitting to take pleasure and to rejoice .. All of this I wrote only to justify the minhag, but one who guards his soul will distance himself from them'.
However, the Magen Avraham3 wrote that by law one need not make an interruption after the dairy and recite a bracha, unless it is hard cheese, and these are his words: 'And see in Yoreh Deah siman 89, that one need not make an interruption with Birkas Hamazon if he does not eat hard cheese; and he should be careful to take another cloth'.
However, in another place he wrote4: 'And I saw in the Birkas HaZevach at the beginning of Arachin that he asked: but they are able to eat meat after waiting the required interval — and he was not precise, for in any case one must recite Birkas Hamazon first; and if he waits six hours the food will be digested. And there too it appears to me that one must recite Birkas Hamazon first, as the Shach wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 89 in the name of the Maharsha"l'.
And it appears from these words of his that also after dairy one must recite Birkas Hamazon; and in the Mateh Yehonasan5 he commented on his words: 'And behold, the Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim wrote that even with meat after cheese Birkas Hamazon is likewise required. And it is reasonable that it is not like him, for it is stated there6 that the middle [water] between meat and cheese is optional — and that is within the seudah; and if so, one is forced to say that Birkas Hamazon is [not] required, for if not, there is no possible case in which middle water would be optional at all, since before Birkas Hamazon mayim acharonim are in any case required as an obligation, and if so the middle water would be unnecessary. Rather, certainly there is no need for Birkas Hamazon at all between cheese and meat'.
And indeed the Levushei Serad7 emended the words of the Magen Avraham: in place of the word 'meat' it should read 'milk' — 'but they are able to eat milk after waiting the required interval' — and if so, all the words of the Magen Avraham, that Birkas Hamazon is required, refer to after eating meat and not after milk.
> Therefore, according to the view of these acharonim, by law it is permitted to eat cheese in one seudah and afterwards meat, without reciting a bracha achrona in between.
But the Knesses HaGedola8 wrote: 'And as for me, although I am among those accustomed not to eat cheese and meat in one seudah, in order to fulfil this — to eat a dairy food and meat on the day of Shavuos — I eat the dairy with the honey first, and I recite Birkas Hamazon, and afterwards, after an hour, I eat a meat food'.
And so wrote the Shelah9: 'The world is accustomed to eat dairy foods on Shavuos, and afterwards they eat meat, to fulfil "ושמחת בחגך" ("And you shall rejoice on your festival"), and there is no simchah without meat. Then one must be exacting to sanctify himself, particularly on such a holy day as this, which is the giving of our Torah: to perform kinuach and hadacha well, and to make an interruption with Birkas Hamazon, and to wait an hour, and afterwards he should spread another cloth, and set the table and meat'.
And the Chok Yaakov10 wrote: 'In my sefer Minchas Yaakov, klal 76 seif katan 5 .. I also wrote there in the name of the Zikaron Moshe that there is a reason to permit on Shavuos to eat a dairy food and meat in one seudah. And in any case one who guards his soul will distance himself from them, and so is the agreement of the acharonim, that on Shavuos too one must be careful in everything as during the whole year, and see there in Yoreh Deah siman 89'. And in the Minchas Yaakov there he wrote, with regard to one who eats cheese first, that it is proper to conduct oneself like the Knesses HaGedola.
And the Pri Chodosh wrote11: 'And to eat meat after cheese one should be stringent like the sefer HaZohar, and one should eat only in two seudos and after having waited one hour'.
And the Pri Megadim12 wrote: 'But after soft cheese I have seen that they are somewhat lenient and rely on kinuach and hadacha; and even one who is stringent recites (on Shavuos) Birkas Hamazon over the dairy seudah and they prepare themselves to eat meat'.
And in Siftei Daas13 he wrote: 'And so is the halacha and the minhag, that they wait six hours, and one should not breach the fence, see the Shach; and we likewise require that he cleared and recited Birkas Hamazon — for if not, even a whole day is of no avail'.
And so wrote the Be'er Mayim Chaim14: 'For you should know that although one need not wait between cheese and meat, in any case Birkas Hamazon is certainly required, so that it should be from seudah to seudah. And although the Magen Avraham wrote (at the end of Hilchos Pesach) in these words: and see in Yoreh Deah siman 89 that one need not make an interruption with Birkas Hamazon between cheese and meat — in any case one who examines Yoreh Deah there and the Toras Chatas klal 76 will see with his own eyes that certainly Birkas Hamazon is required also between cheese and meat, and this is clear to one who examines it truthfully, (and it is possible that a scribal error fell into the printing of the Magen Avraham)'.
In the Keren L'Dovid15 he wrote: 'And regarding that which you debated, whether one must wait after a dairy seudah and recite Birkas Hamazon before eating meat — behold you spoke well, that according to the law explained in the Shulchan Aruch and the poskim one need not wait at all after eating dairy, and Birkas Hamazon is not required; only when he wishes to eat dairy foods after meat or a cooked dish of meat is Birkas Hamazon required, so that it should be another seudah, but not the reverse; and only kinuach and hadacha are required, as is explained in the Magen Avraham .. And so it is proved from that which is explained in Orach Chaim siman 196 in the Magen Avraham seif katan 1: three who ate at one table, this one meat and this one dairy — the one who ate dairy should recite the bracha and not the one who ate meat, for one who ate dairy may eat together with the one who ate meat, but not the reverse; it is likewise explicitly explained that Birkas Hamazon too is not required, for if not, he too would not be able to eat before he recites the bracha, and this is obvious .. And afterwards I saw in the Pri Megadim .. that he wrote to be stringent to recite Birkas Hamazon first; and so it is explained in the holy sefer Be'er Mayim Chaim on the Torah .. and he wrote that what the Magen Avraham wrote in siman 494 is a scribal error. And see the Pri Chodosh there, who ruled that Birkas Hamazon is required and that one must wait an hour, like the words of the holy Zohar; and see the sefer Darkei Teshuva Yoreh Deah siman 89'16.
> Therefore, in practice one should not eat dairy and afterwards meat in one seudah; rather one must make an interruption between them — apart from waiting an hour — also with a bracha achrona, and so is the minhag on Shavuos17'.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe OC siman 494 se'if 16 ↩
2 din 26 ↩
3 siman 494 s"k 6. And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah, siman 196 s"k 3, and siman 494 s"k 10 ↩
4 siman 196 s"k 1 ↩
5 YD siman 89 se'if 1 ↩
6 Chullin 105a ↩
7 Ibid. s"k 7 ↩
8 Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah הגה"ט, OC siman 494 s"k 3 ↩
9 Maseches Shevuos, perek Ner Mitzvah ↩
10 siman 494 s"k 11 ↩
11 YD siman 89 s"k 6 ↩
12 Mishbetzos Zahav siman 89 s"k 3 ↩
13 s"k 8 ↩
14 Vayeira 18:8 ↩
15 OC siman 140 os 2 ↩
16 And see also Teshuvos V'Hanhagos vol. 2 siman 390 ↩
17 See Darkei Teshuvah siman 89 s"k 19 at its end. And see also the words of the Rebbe at the farbrengen of the second day of Chag HaShavuos 5743 (Toras Menachem vol. 3 p. 1579), that on Shavuos one should not be lenient — on the contrary ↩
[16] (Halacha 948)
In the previous halachos we saw the laws of the interval between eating meat and milk and likewise the reverse.
> Question: What is the law in a case where a person ate a cooked dish of meat or a cooked dish of cheese?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Chullin1 states: 'The matter itself: the first and the last waters are an obligation; the middle waters are optional .. The middle waters are optional — Rav Nachman said: They taught this only between one cooked dish and another cooked dish, but between a cooked dish and cheese it is an obligation'.
And Tosafos wrote, in the passage beginning 'They taught this only': 'Rabbeinu Shmuel says that it speaks of both of them being of meat or both of them being of cheese; but between a cooked dish of meat and cheese that is before him it is an obligation. However, regarding cheese after it he did not speak, for even with netilas yadayim it is forbidden to eat until another seudah, as was stated above: one who ate meat is forbidden to eat cheese. And it did not appear correct to Rabbeinu Tam, for "between a cooked dish and cheese" implies that the cooked dish comes first .. And furthermore, between one cooked dish and another cooked dish, where both of them are of meat or of cheese, why should he need to wash at all? And Rabbeinu Tam explains that "between one cooked dish and another cooked dish" means between a cooked dish of meat and a cooked dish of cheese, for since the meat and the cheese are not present in substance and there is only taste, they were not stringent that it should be an obligation to wash his hands in between, and it is only optional; but between a cooked dish of meat and cheese, where the cheese is present in substance, it is an obligation. And this explanation is possible even according to the words of those who forbid eating cheese after meat in the same seudah, even with netilah and kinuach'.
> Therefore, according to the view of the Rashbam — the words of Rav Nachman, that the middle netilah is optional, speak of a netilah between two cooked dishes of meat, or between two cooked dishes of dairy; and there is no leniency in his words with regard to a cooked dish of meat that it should be considered less than meat itself. And in a case where he ate cheese and wishes to eat a cooked dish of meat, he is obligated to wash his hands between them; and in a case where he ate a cooked dish of meat and wishes to eat cheese, he is obligated to wait for another seudah.
> But according to the view of Rabbeinu Tam — Rav Nachman spoke of a netilah between a meat cooked dish and a dairy one, and we learn a leniency from his words, that a cooked dish of meat does not have the law of meat itself; and therefore when one eats a meat cooked dish and afterwards a dairy cooked dish there is no obligation to wash his hands, since the meat and the cheese are not present in substance. And when he eats a cooked dish of meat it is permitted to eat cheese after it, but he must wash the hands.
And the Rishonim disagree, according to the view of Rabbeinu Tam, as to what is considered a cooked dish: for Rabbeinu Peretz on the Semak2 wrote: 'However, this is specifically when he eats meat in substance; but if he ate a cooked dish of meat, such as eggs fried in fat, or of ינקוק"ה, it is permitted to eat cheese after it by means of kinuach and hadacha according to all the explanations, as they explained in Tosafos regarding that which it states, but between a cooked dish and cheese it is an obligation. Thus far from the Mahara"p, may his soul rest in Eden'.
And the Beis Yosef3 wrote in the name of the Hagahos Maimoniyos4: 'However, they wrote in the name of the Semak5 that it requires examination with regard to gravy of meat, for when it contains meat it draws the water in the mouth, end quote. That is to say, that perhaps that which it is permitted to eat cheese after a cooked dish of meat is specifically in a case such as eggs fried in fat, which do not draw the water in the mouth so much; but gravy of meat, no'.
> Therefore, according to the view of Rabbeinu Peretz on the Semak, a food fried in the fat of meat has the law of a cooked dish of meat; and the Beis Yosef added in the name of the Semak that it is possible that gravy of meat has the law of meat itself.
On the other hand, Rabbeinu Yonah6 wrote: 'And there are those who explain that "between a cooked dish and cheese" means between the soup of meat and cheese, which is certainly permitted with kinuach and hadacha, for they required waiting only when he eats the meat, because of the meat between the teeth; but with soup, where this concern does not exist, it is certainly permitted to eat cheese afterwards. And therefore he said that between the soup of the meat and the cheese, netilas yadayim is an obligation'.
And in like manner Rabbeinu Yerucham7 wrote: 'And Tosafos explained: between one cooked dish and another cooked dish it is optional — that is to say, between a cooked dish of meat, meaning between the soup of the meat and the soup of cheese, for then it is optional to wash his hands, since the cheese and the meat are not present in substance; he eats the soup of the meat first and afterwards the soup of cheese. But between a cooked dish and cheese — that is to say, that he ate meat soup and wishes to eat cheese — it is an obligation to wash his hands, for it is permitted to eat cheese after meat soup in the same seudah, even according to the words of those who forbid meat and cheese until another seudah. And I have seen that my teachers conduct themselves so specifically with meat soup that is clear; but thick soup, such as with vegetables and the like, it is forbidden to eat cheese after it until another seudah, lest there be meat in the soup and it is not visible; and so it is fitting to rule, and so it is proved from Tosafos'.
> Therefore, according to the view of Rabbeinu Yonah and Rabbeinu Yerucham, soup of meat is not like meat, but one must wash the hands before eating cheese; however, with thick soup Rabbeinu Yerucham wrote that one must be stringent and wait, lest pieces of meat remain there.
However, there are Rishonim who were stringent also with regard to the fat of meat, as the Rashba8 wrote: 'You said further that they are divided regarding a pot dish made with the fat of meat, that the one permits eating cheese immediately after it .. and the one forbids. Answer: The law is with the one who forbids, and this lenient one errs in his reasoning. For he holds that they forbade meat and afterwards cheese only because of meat between the teeth; and when he eats the substance of meat there is this concern, because of strands of meat and sinews that become caught between the teeth and the gums; but melted fat is like cheese and afterwards meat, where kinuach of the mouth and netilas yadayim suffice for you. But it is not so, for they did not distinguish in the eating of meat, that we should say that one who eats coarse meat is forbidden and one who eats meat finely ground is permitted; for if you say so, you have given your words over to measures, and according to the words of the one who permits there is no limit. And I see no aspect of doubt in this at all: one who guards his mouth guards his soul from trouble'.
And the Mordechai9 wrote: 'I saw my teacher, who forbade eating cheese after eggs fried in [goose] fat, because of a decree on account of basar b'cholov [and not like the words of Rabbeinu Tam and the Halachos Gedolos10], end quote'.
And the Issur V'Heter HaAruch11 wrote that such is the minhag: 'And they were accustomed to be stringent even if he did not eat the meat itself but only a cooked dish of meat or of the fat of meat, even with kinuach and hadacha, for the reason stated above: that even though it does not stick between the teeth, in any case the taste of the greasiness of the meat lingers in his mouth for a long time; and also for the reason written in the Mordechai in perek Kol HaBasar in the name of the Mahara"m ..'.
In this halacha we have seen the views of the Rishonim in the law of a cooked dish of meat, and in the next halacha we will see how the halacha was ruled.
Notes:
1 105a-b ↩
2 mitzvah 213, hagahah 9 ↩
3 OC siman 173 ↩
4 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 9 ↩
5 And it is not in the Semak that we have; and see Shu"t Lehoros Nosson vol. 7 siman 56 ↩
6 Brochos 40b, d"h lo shanu ↩
7 nesiv 15, os 28, 137b ↩
8 Shu"t vol. 1 siman 307 ↩
9 Chullin siman 687 ↩
10 This addition is in the Mordechai HaShalem, Machon Yerushalayim edition ↩
11 Sha'ar 40, siman 2 ↩
[17] (Halacha 949)
In the previous halacha we saw the views of the Rishonim regarding a cooked dish of meat and cheese, whether its law is like meat and cheese themselves, and likewise the dispute as to what is a cooked dish.
> Question: How was the halacha ruled with regard to one who eats cheese after a cooked dish of meat?
Answer: The Beis Yosef1 wrote: 'And so the world is accustomed, not to eat cheese after a cooked dish of meat at all, and one should not breach the fence'.
However, in the Shulchan Aruch2 the Mechaber wrote like the view of Rabbeinu Tam: 'If he ate a cooked dish of meat, it is permitted to eat after it a cooked dish of cheese; and the netilah between them is only optional, [and the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And there are those who require netilah'], but if he comes to eat the cheese itself after a cooked dish of meat, or the meat itself after a cooked dish of cheese, it is an obligation to wash his hands'.
And the Rema wrote in a gloss: 'And they are accustomed now to be stringent not to eat cheese after a cooked dish of meat, just as after meat itself, and one should not deviate and breach the fence'.
Therefore it appears that the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch ruled like the view of Rabbeinu Tam, and the Rema wrote that they were accustomed to be stringent like the view of the Rashbam, and he brought the words of the Mechaber in the Beis Yosef, that they were accustomed to be stringent and that it is forbidden to breach the fence.
The acharonim3 were astonished at the Mechaber: why did he write in the Shulchan Aruch like Rabbeinu Tam, leniently, and did not mention his words in the Beis Yosef, that they were accustomed to be stringent?
In Shu"t Ginas Veradim4 he wrote that in the Shulchan Aruch he retracted, and leniently: 'And the Rav Beis Yosef, of blessed memory, upheld him and closed the door, that one should not breach the fence; and he permitted only something that was cooked in a pot of meat without there being any meat in the pot at all, only what the pot emits of the taste of meat .. And already he himself, the Rav Beis Yosef, retracted in his short sefer, the Shulchan Aruch ..'.
But the Chida5 rejected his words: 'And it is far-fetched in my eyes that he retracted; for this would be well if there were no minhag, but now that they were accustomed so on account of a fence, and it is a widespread minhag in the world, a retraction is not applicable. And the minhag is well founded, for according to the words of the Rif and his company no permission to eat cheese after a cooked dish of meat was mentioned in the Gemara, as the Rav Pri Chodosh wrote in seif katan 18. And the Mordechai wrote: I saw my teacher, who forbade eating cheese after eggs fried in fat, because of a decree on account of basar b'cholov; and Maran brought him in the Beis Yosef there in Orach Chaim, in the aforementioned siman, and upon this he wrote: and so the world is accustomed not to eat, etc. And since this is so, he should have brought the minhag in the Shulchan Aruch'.
That is to say, according to the view of the Chida it is not possible to say that the Mechaber retracted, since he himself testified in the Beis Yosef that the minhag to be stringent had been accepted, and it is not applicable to retract from a minhag.
Therefore, in practice6, both according to the view of the Mechaber and according to the view of the Rema, the minhag is to treat a cooked dish of meat like meat itself.
> Question: What is the law of fat of meat or of fowl?
Answer: The Rema wrote there: 'And the fat of meat, its law is like meat itself'.
And with regard to the fat of fowl, the Rema wrote in Toras HaChatas7: 'And in the gloss of the Shaarei Dura8 that even with the fat of fowl one should be stringent, and its law is like actual meat; and he wrote that so they were accustomed, and not like those who are lenient with goose fat, since the meat of fowl is rabbinic; and they rely on the words of the Semak, who wrote that even the fat of the meat of a beheimah has the law of a cooked dish of meat'.
And in Vikuach Mayim Chaim9 he wrote: 'However, with a cooked dish that was made only from goose fat it would appear that one may be lenient, for even with one who eats goose fat itself without a cooked dish it is implied above that there are those who are lenient, since the meat of fowl is rabbinic; and even with the fat of a beheimah, if only from the fat of the fowl, it would appear that certainly one need not be so stringent. However, since we find a permission only with something cooked in a pot of meat, it is implied that one should not be lenient with any cooked dish of meat. And I can give faithful testimony as to what I saw in the days of my youth in the kehillah of Posen, my city of birth: for one year there was a great shortage there of butter of milk, because they are very careful there about butter of akum, and goose fat was exceedingly available there; and the Beis Din, the elder gaon, the chassid, Moreinu HaRav Shmuel Margolios, of blessed memory, then permitted the young lads who eat from the kupah to prepare their cooked dishes with goose fat and to eat cheese afterwards. And he said explicitly that he permits this only because the pressing need is great, and particularly for these lads, of whom there are many in the kupah, and also since they are supported by the community they are called poor; but he did not wish to permit so in another year, nor for other baalei batim at all'.
And in practice the acharonim brought the aforementioned words of the Rema, as the Taz10 wrote: 'And it is written in Toras Chatas klal 77 in the name of the gloss of the Shaarei Dura that even with goose fat one should be stringent so'.
And so wrote the Shach11: 'And even the fat of fowl, its law is like actual fat; so it is written in Toras Chatas there, din 4, in the name of the Mordechai and the gloss of the Shaarei Dura, and so he ruled in the Simanim of Toras Chatas there'.
And the Pri Megadim12 wrote: 'And with goose fat too it is fitting to be stringent to wait six hours, see the Levush Orach Chaim 173, and the world is stringent'.
> Question: What is the law of soup of meat?
Answer: The Taz wrote there: 'And in the Beis Yosef in Orach Chaim siman 173 he wrote in the name of the Hagahos Maimoniyos that soup of meat has the law of meat; and Rabbeinu Yonah .. wrote that it has the law of a cooked dish of meat, since it is clear; but if it is thick, such as [with] vegetables, it has the law of meat'.
And the Pri Megadim13 wrote: 'And with regard to gravy of meat there is a dispute, whether it is similar to a cooked dish that was cooked in a pot [with] meat, or whether it is similar to meat itself; and one who is stringent, may a bracha come upon him. However, when it is thick and contains dissolved meat, its law is like meat and six hours are required'.
However, the Chida14 wrote: 'All these permissions are by the essential law; but according to what they were accustomed, to be stringent not to eat cheese after a cooked dish of meat, as Maran wrote in the Beis Yosef Orach Chaim siman 173 and Morenu HaRav Moshe Isserles nearby, here too, even if he drank clear soup, one should not eat cheese after it. And so it is the practice, to be stringent with soup like meat itself. And Maran has already written in the Beis Yosef that one should not breach the fence'.
> Therefore, in practice we are stringent with every meat fat, and with every meat cooked dish, even if he drinks only the water that was cooked with the meat.
Notes:
1 OC siman 173 ↩
2 YD siman 89 se'if 3 ↩
3 See the glosses of the Sma, and others ↩
4 Chelek YD, klal 1 siman 17 ↩
5 Shiyurei Berachah s"k 25 ↩
6 See Kaf HaChaim YD siman 89 s"k 50 and 55. Halichos Olam (by הגרע"י) vol. 7, din 1 ↩
7 Klal 76-77, din 4 ↩
8 siman 76, os 2 ↩
9 s"k 5 ↩
10 s"k 18 ↩
11 Siftei Daas s"k 17 ↩
12 Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 5 ↩
13 Shiyurei Berachah ibid. s"k 30 ↩
[18] (Halacha 950)
In the previous halacha we saw that the ruling accepted in practice is that a cooked meat dish (even soup alone) has the status of meat, and therefore in order to eat dairy one must wait six hours.
> Question: What is the halacha in a case of a dish that was cooked in a meat pot that had not been cleaned beforehand?
Answer: The Beis Yosef wrote1: 'However, if there is no meat in the dish, even though it was cooked in a pot in which meat is cooked, they did not have the practice to be stringent, and it is permitted to eat cheese after it'.
And the Rema brought it2: 'However, if there is no meat in the dish, only that it was cooked in a meat pot, it is permitted to eat cheese after it, and there is no minhag to be stringent in it'.
And the Toras HaAsham wrote3: 'Only that they were cooked in a meat pot. That is to say, that there is no substance present, for the pot has been wiped clean. And so it is explicitly in the Hagahos Shaarei Dura. Even though the Beis Yosef wrote this on his own, nevertheless certainly this is how the words of the Beis Yosef must be explained .. And in the Bach, siman 89, he wrote that he found written in the name of one great authority that even where it is not wiped clean it is permitted to eat [cheese] afterwards, and that this is the essential ruling, since it is nullified in its smallness'.
The Shach4 wondered what novelty the Rema was teaching here in writing that this is permitted, for this is nat bar nat, which may be eaten together with actual cheese; and therefore he writes that the Rema's intent here is to teach a novelty like the words of the Bach, and this is his language: 'Below, at the beginning of siman 95, it will be explained that even to eat it together with cheese is permitted, for it is nat bar nat; and it appears that what he teaches us here, that it is permitted to eat cheese afterwards, is even where it was cooked in a pot that was not rinsed well, so that there is a bit of substance of the forbidden [food], for in such a case it is forbidden to eat it together with cheese, as is explained there, and here it is permitted'.
However, the Acharonim wondered at the Shach, for according to the Rema's view it is forbidden to eat nat bar nat with milk, as the Eliyah Rabbah wrote5: 'The Shach was not precise in this, for in siman 95 the Rema wrote that the minhag is to forbid eating it together with cheese l'chatchilah; regarding this the Rema wrote in siman 89 that it is permitted even l'chatchilah to eat cheese after [it] .. And regarding the law of a pot that was not rinsed well, I have seen that the Bach too permits eating cheese after it. But it does not appear so to me'.
And the Minchas Yaakov6 wrote: 'In truth all his words [=of the Shach] are unnecessary, for from the outset there is no difficulty at all in the words of the Rav, since it is explicitly explained .. that where it was cooked it is forbidden l'chatchilah to eat it with kutach; and if so, he teaches us here that it is permitted to eat cheese after it even l'chatchilah, and in any case, as regards the halacha, it is a true ruling that even if they were not rinsed well it is likewise permitted, as the Bach too wrote at the end of siman 89'.
The Pri Megadim7 explained the words of the Shach: 'Even though below the Rav wrote that there are those who are stringent regarding roasting and cooking not to eat it with kutach, and so is the halacha, nevertheless the Beis Yosef in OC siman 173 also wrote that they have the practice to permit where it was cooked in a meat pot; and according to him, why speak of one after the other — even together it would be permitted? Rather, perforce it is where there is substance smeared on it. If so, the same applies for us, and the ruling is true'.
That is to say, the Pri Megadim explained that the Shach's proof is from the Beis Yosef, who also wrote this ruling even though he certainly permits in siman 95; and it is proven like the novelty of the Shach, that the case is where there is a bit of substance and even so it is permitted to eat cheese afterwards.
And the Acharonim disagreed as to the Shach's own view, whether he was speaking of a case where there is sixty against the substance and there is no imparting of taste, or whether the Shach permitted even in a case where there is no sixty8, as the Pischei Teshuvah wrote9: 'And it appears that he means even if there is no sixty against what is smeared on the surface of the pot, for otherwise the original difficulty remains. And according to this it is obvious that a dish into which a little fat was placed — it is permitted to eat cheese after it even if there was no sixty against the fat [I have now seen in the sefer Beis Lechem Yehudah, s"k 15, who wrote on the words of the Shach, and this is his language: And it appears to me that this is specifically where the substance does not impart taste into the dish, but only moisture smeared on its surface; but if the substance imparts taste into the dish it is like fat, end quote. And according to this, in a dish that has fat in it and there is no sixty in the dish against it, one may not be lenient]'.
And so wrote the Ben Ish Chai10: 'And this is specifically if there is sixty in that dish against the meat soiling of the pot, but if there is no sixty against the meat soiling, washing, kinuach and rinsing the mouth alone do not suffice for him; rather he must wait at least one hour, and one who is stringent in this too for six hours — may a blessing come upon him'.
On the other hand, the Yad Avraham wrote: 'And one must say that he is speaking even where we know that there was no sixty against the fat; for if it were a case of uncertainty, we would say that there was sixty, as the Minchas Yaakov wrote, and if so, what would there still be to say? However, from the language of the Beis Yosef in OC siman 173 it appears that he is speaking according to the words of those who forbid, since he concludes: and whether it is permitted to eat it together with cheese, Rabbeinu wrote in YD siman 95. And likewise in the sefer א"ז he is stringent ..'.
And so wrote the Aruch HaShulchan11: 'However, if there is no meat in the dish, only that it was cooked in a meat pot [even if it is ben yomo and even if it is soiled with meat and there is no sixty against the soiling] it is permitted to eat cheese after it and there is no minhag to be stringent in it'.
And since the poskim disagreed as to the view of the Shach, therefore, in practice, where a meat pot was not carefully cleaned and food was cooked in it, it is permitted to eat dairy immediately after it, unless it is known with certainty that there is no sixty against the substance and the taste is discernible.
--------------
Notes:
1 OC siman 173 ↩
2 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 3 in the Hagahah ↩
3 Klal 76-77, din 4 ↩
4 Ibid. s"k 19 ↩
5 siman 173 s"k 4 ↩
6 Klal 76-77 s"k 13 ↩
7 Siftei Daas s"k 19 ↩
8 The Yad Yehudah (Peirush HaAroch s"k 5) wrote to explain the reason for this: that the Shach permitted even where there is no sixty, since there is a difference between a case where a person wants the meat taste and the case of the Shach, where the person was not careful to clean it but is not seeking that taste, and therefore there is nothing to decree or be stringent about in this ↩
9 s"k 7 ↩
10 Shanah Beis, Shelach, se'if 12 ↩
11 YD siman 89 se'if 13 ↩
[19] (Halacha 953)
Question: Does a waiter who serves the food need to wash his hands between meat and milk?
Answer: Regarding an attendant who serves food at a seudah, Rashi wrote1: 'And even though he touches the entire seudah it does not concern us, for they required netilah only for those who eat, and not for those who touch'.
And the Beis Yosef brought it2: 'Rashi wrote in Perek Kol HaBasar concerning an attendant who serves at a seudah, that even though he touches the seudah it does not concern us, for they required netilah only for those who eat, and not for those who touch'.
And on this basis the Rema wrote3: 'An attendant who serves at a seudah and touches the food does not need netilah, for they required netilah only for those who eat'.
However, the Shach4 took issue with them: 'In truth they were not precise at all, for Rashi is speaking there only regarding the first netilas yodayim for eating, and this is plain in the Gemara there and is agreed upon by all the poskim, as is explained in OC siman 163, that one who feeds another does not need netilas yodayim even though he touches. But the middle waters, between a cooked dish and cheese or the reverse, whose reason is that it sticks to the hands — it is obvious that there is no distinction between one who eats and one who touches, and not one of the poskim would have failed to draw such a distinction'.
And the Knesses HaGedolah wrote5: 'All the later poskim brought it as a halachic ruling, except for the Shach, who wrote that they were not precise at all, for Rashi is speaking there only regarding the first netilas yodayim for eating ..'6.
The Minchas Yaakov7 agreed with the Shach: 'And the Beis Yosef and the Rav erred in this, so wrote the Shach .. and his words are clear and true'.
The Pri Chodosh8 brought the Shach, and concluded: 'However, it stands to reason that if he carries the food back and forth while it lies in a bowl, he does not need netilah'.
And in the Yad Yehudah9 he wrote: In truth one must examine that which we say in the Mishnah, that a person may bind up meat and cheese in one cloth, provided that they do not touch one another. And why did it not state a greater novelty, that he himself should not touch this one and that one; also, presumably when he binds them up and seals them he touches this one and that one, and we are not concerned — and this requires study. However, they have already accepted the practice to be stringent'. And in the Peirush HaKatzar10 he wrote: 'And in any case one should be stringent; and if he did not touch the food one may be lenient'.
However, many Acharonim wrote to resolve the words of the Beis Yosef and the Rema, as the Beis Hillel wrote11: 'Even though Rashi wrote this ruling regarding the first waters, in the Gemara in Chullin daf 107b, nevertheless the Beis Yosef and the Rav in the Hagahah learned from it that it is all the more so regarding cheese and meat: that even though he touched cheese, he does not need netilah if he afterwards touches meat, and this is easily understood'.
And the Plaisi12 wrote: 'The Shach and the Acharonim wondered that this was said only regarding netilas yodayim for a seudah, and not regarding the middle waters. And it appears that the Beis Yosef, Heaven forbid, was not mistaken in this; rather he held that we do not find anywhere that they instituted, regarding one who merely touches meat, that he may not touch cheese until he washes his hands. And if you should think so, then what is it that they said, that one who ate meat needs netilah for cheese — after all, even one who merely touches would need netilah. Rather, certainly they instituted it only for one who eats, whose hands are especially soiled, and with eating they were also more concerned to distance further. If so, there is no need to elaborate [that] the attendant, who merely touches, is permitted; it is only lest you say that they decreed lest he come to eat, and regarding this he brings a proof, for we see with netilas yodayim that they did not decree so — from which we learn that they did not decree; and if so, in this too there is no reason to decree. And we return to our principle: from where would one forbid touching, something we do not find at all — this appears to me to be the intent of Rabbeinu the Beis Yosef'.
And in this vein the Toras Yekusiel wrote13: '.. And what emerges from the words of Rashi is that we are not concerned, even regarding an attendant, lest he eat; and therefore he does not need netilah if he does not eat. And according to this, a major ruling emerges for us from the words of Rashi: that an attendant who serves at a seudah, meat to this one and cheese to that one, does not need netilas yodayim or kinuach of the mouth on account of lest he eat, since we are not at all concerned lest he eat, just as we are not concerned there. And in my humble opinion it is clear as a matter of halacha and is proven from the Gemara; it is only because Rashi wrote so explicitly that they wrote this in the name of Rashi'.
The Aruch HaShulchan14 also wrote to explain: 'And it appears to me that there is no objection here, for neither the first waters nor the middle waters carry any element of a Torah prohibition; rather all of them are a takanah of the Chachamim. Therefore it is a kal vachomer: if with the first waters, which are stringent — to the point that Chazal said at the beginning of Sotah that whoever eats without netilas yodayim is as though he ate impure bread — even so they were not stringent regarding one who serves, then all the more so with the middle waters, that they did not decree for those who serve, only for those who eat'.
And the Kaf HaChaim wrote15 in the name of the Zivchei Tzedek16: 'And therefore the essential ruling is like the words of Maran and the Rema z"l'.
The Toras Yekusiel wrote there: 'What emerges from this as a matter of halacha is that the takanah of the Chachamim was only for eating, and if he eats by means of another, it would seem there is room for doubt whether he needs netilas yodayim. Even though regarding the first netilas yodayim we hold that one who eats by being fed by another needs netilas yodayim, one can say that such was the takanah of the Chachamim, that one who eats needs netilas yodayim — and there too because they supported it with a verse, as is known in its place17, but here it appears more that the takanah was only for one who eats himself, and not where he eats by means of another; but regarding an attendant, he certainly needs netilas yodayim even by means of another. And just as we say regarding the first netilas yodayim, that even according to the initial assumption that one who eats by being fed by another does not need netilas yodayim, even so an attendant does need it, because we are concerned lest he eat — and the same applies here. But an attendant who does not eat — we are not concerned lest he eat, and the practical difference is that he needs neither kinuach nor rinsing of the mouth; netilas yodayim too he needs only as one who touches and not as one who eats, as appears to me in my humble opinion'.
> In practice, although the essential ruling appears to be like the view of the Beis Yosef and the Rema, since there are Acharonim who disagreed with them, therefore in a case where a waiter serves food and touches the food with his hands, it is proper l'chatchilah that he wash his hands between meat and milk, unless he does not touch the food with his hands, in which case he need not wash.
--------------
Notes:
1 Chullin 107b ↩
2 YD siman 89 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 3 in the Hagahah ↩
4 s"k 21 ↩
5 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD siman 89 s"k 17 ↩
6 The Darkei Teshuvah (siman 89 s"k 46) wrote: 'But in the Knesses HaGedolah, in the Hagahos Beis Yosef os 17, he wrote like the Shach to be stringent, that there is no distinction between one who eats and one who touches — see there'; and this requires study, for he himself wrote that the Shach is a lone opinion against all the poskim! ↩
7 Klal 76-77 s"k 14 ↩
8 Ibid. s"k 21 ↩
9 Peirush HaAroch s"k 6 ↩
10 os 33 ↩
11 Ibid. s"k 2 ↩
12 s"k 6. And see also the Mateh Yehonasan on the Shulchan Aruch ↩
13 YD ibid. s"k 2 ↩
14 YD ibid. se'if 14 ↩
15 YD siman 89 s"k 64 ↩
16 s"k 41 ↩
17 See Chullin 106a. Brochos 53b ↩
[20] (Halacha 954)
Question: May one eat from the same loaf at a meat seudah and at a dairy seudah?
Answer: It is stated in the Talmud Yerushalmi1: 'It was taught: the chagigah that comes with the Pesach was burned together with it. Come and see: the chagigah is eaten for two days and the Pesach is eaten only until midnight — would you say so? Rather, concerning what comes up with it on his table: the cooked foods that come up with it on the table must be burned together with it. Rabbi Yosa said: This teaches that one who eats cheese and intends to eat meat must remove his bread'.
And the Or Zarua wrote2: 'And it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar that where one ate cheese and wishes to eat meat, he must remove from the table the bread and all the foods that came up onto the table with the cheese, and afterwards bring meat and eat, as they said in Pesachim, perek Eilu Devarim: it was taught, the chagigah that comes with the Pesach is burned together with it. Come and see: the chagigah is eaten for two days and the Pesach is eaten only until midnight, and you say so? Rather, concerning what comes up with it on the table: the cooked foods that come up with it on the table must be burned together with it. Rabbi Yosa said: This teaches that one who ate cheese and intends to eat meat must remove his bread. The explanation: since it teaches that the cooked foods that come up with the Pesach onto the table must be burned together with it, from there I can learn that one who eats milk or cheese and wishes afterwards to eat meat must remove the milk and the cheese and the bread and all the foods that came up with it onto the table, and afterwards bring meat and eat. And so I saw in an old Yerushalmi that was entirely vocalized: "to remove his bread"; and the reading is not [his bread], but rather we read "to remove", meaning that one must remove everything from upon the table. So it appears to me, the author, Yitzchak bar Moshe נב"ה'.
The Hagahos Ashri3 brought the Or Zarua: 'And it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar that where one ate cheese and wishes to eat meat, he must remove from the table the bread and all the food that came up onto the table with the cheese, and afterwards bring meat and eat. From the Or Zarua'.
> If so, in the Talmud Yerushalmi it is explained that bread which was used at one seudah should not be used for a seudah of the other kind. And the Or Zarua added that this is a mitzvah min hamuvchar, and that so it is with all foods, not only bread.
However, the Tur4 wrote this ruling only with regard to bread: 'And so it is found in the Yerushalmi: one who ate cheese and wishes to eat meat removes the crumbs. The explanation: one who ate cheese and wishes to eat meat must remove from the table the remnants of bread that he ate with the cheese'.
> And as a matter of halacha, the Mechaber5 wrote the words of the Tur: 'One who ate cheese and wishes to eat meat must remove from the table the remnants of bread that they ate with the cheese'. And the Levush explained6: 'For perhaps there are crumbs of cheese stuck to it, or fat from the moisture of the cheese remained in it'.
The Vikuach Mayim Chaim wrote7: 'And in the lands of Poland I saw a number of people who do not have much food and find it hard to cut another whole loaf, and they cut from the bread about a finger's thickness from the place where they ate the meat, with a wiped knife or with a knife that is neither of meat nor of milk, and the rest they eat with cheese with a dairy knife. But I have not seen this done in these lands, and so it is proper to be stringent, since on every side of the bread there is room for concern that the first food stuck to it, and it would therefore be proper to peel the entire loaf'.
From his words it appears that there were places where the practice was that any bread that had been on the table should not be eaten from, and there were places that were lenient and used the bread, only that they removed from it the parts that could be problematic.
And note the language of the Alter Rebbe8: 'And likewise one who eats cheese and two who eat meat join together, for the one who eats cheese is able to eat from their bread even though it is soiled with meat, if he wipes his mouth and rinses it. But if he eats hard cheese they do not join together, for the minhag nowadays is not to eat meat after hard cheese by means of kinuach and hadacha .. This is not so with those eating meat and cheese, who cannot eat, this one from the slice that the other cut — even though each one can cut a slice for himself from one loaf, particularly before they have touched the meat and the milk, this does not help to unite and join them, for what difference is there between separate loaves and one loaf)'.
In practice, the Igros Moshe wrote9: 'My friend raised a difficulty, that it would seem one must designate bread for meat foods alone and for dairy foods alone, and why are people not careful in this. Now, the prohibition applies only to the remnants of the piece of bread with which they ate the cheese, or even to the small piece that he cut in order to eat the cheese with it, regarding which he is not careful, since he intended to eat it with the cheese; and therefore, even if he says that the cheese did not touch it, it is like a matter that is not incumbent upon him and to which he pays no attention, as is found in siman 18 in the Shach s"k 8. But the large loaf, which stands to serve both for dairy foods and for meat foods — people are careful with it, and there is no concern that perhaps the cheese or the meat touched it. And this settles what appears in the Yerushalmi Pesachim perek 6 halacha 4, which is the source of this ruling according to the girsa of the Tur in siman 91: Rabbi Yosi said, one who eats cheese and intends to eat meat must remove the crumbs — and so is the girsa of the Beis Yosef and the Gra in siman 89; and even according to our girsa, "must remove the bread", the intent is likewise the crumbs, only that he stated it in the singular .. because it is specifically the crumbs from the piece with which he ate the cheese that he forbids, and not the large loaf, and this is for the reason I explained, that people are careful with it .. But one who wishes to be stringent not to eat with meat any of the bread that was on the table at a cheese meal, or the reverse, even though there is no concern in it as a matter of halacha — there is an advantage in this, as an added measure of distancing, and this is the intent of the Hagahos Ashri in Chullin, perek Kol HaBasar siman 7, who wrote: and it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar that where one ate cheese and wishes to eat meat, he must remove from the table the bread and all the food that came up onto the table with the cheese — see there; for his intent is even to the large loaf, and it is not from the ruling of the Yerushalmi, for there it is an actual ruling, and how then could he write that it is only a mitzvah min hamuvchar? Rather it is his own reasoning: that since regarding the piece with which he ate the cheese there is a prohibition, it is fitting that there be a mitzvah min hamuvchar regarding all the bread that was on the table'10.
In the Badei HaShulchan (Cohen)11 he brought the Igros Moshe, and wrote: 'And regarding other neutral foods that are eaten in the course of the seudah, such as salad and the like, it appears that it depends on the manner in which they are taken from the bowl in which they lie: for if he takes them with the fork or spoon with which he is eating his seudah, what remains may no longer be eaten with the opposite kind, for there is room for concern that some of the kind he is eating now stuck to it; but if he takes from them with a fork or spoon designated for them, it is permitted to eat what remains with the opposite kind. But it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar that all the bread and the other foods that were on the table when he ate cheese should be removed from the table when he comes to eat meat, and it appears that in a place where there are small children who handle everything, there is perhaps room for concern in this even as a matter of halacha'12.
> If so, in practice one should not use bread and salads that were eaten from at one seudah for a seudah at which the other kind is eaten, unless there is no concern — such as a central loaf that is guarded to remain pareve, or salads that are carefully taken with spoons designated for the salads. And whoever is careful, holy shall he be called.
Notes:
1 Pesachim perek 6 halacha 4 ↩
2 Hilchos Basar b'Cholov siman 460 ↩
3 Chullin perek 8 siman 7 ↩
4 YD siman 91 ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 4 ↩
6 YD ibid. se'if 4 ↩
7 Klal 76-77 se'if 7 ↩
8 OC siman 196 se'if 7 ↩
9 YD vol. 1 siman 38 ↩
10 However, it should be noted that his words do not quite fit with the Or Zarua, the source of the words of the Hagahos Ashri ↩
11 os 99 ↩
12 And see Yalkut Yosef siman 89 osiyos 63-64, who brought their words ↩
[21] (Halacha 955)
Question: May one eat both meat and dairy on the same tablecloth?
Answer: The Rashba wrote1: 'The matter appears clear to me, that it is forbidden to eat cheese on a tablecloth on which they ate meat, and likewise to eat meat on a tablecloth on which they ate cheese, for there is no tablecloth at all that does not have upon it several drops of the meat that was eaten on it. And I do not say this on account of what is absorbed into it, for what is absorbed comes out only by means of something hot; and if it were on account of absorption, it would be forbidden to place hot cheese upon it, but not cold. Rather, I say — and so is the truth — that there is meat residue on the tablecloth. Many times drops of the cooked dish fall upon it, and this happens constantly; and likewise they wipe on it the knife with which they cut the meat. And whatever is present, when cheese is placed upon it, whether hot or cold, they at the very least touch one another, and rinsing is in any case required. As we learned in the Mishnah2: a person may bind up meat and cheese in one cloth, provided that they do not touch one another. And we raised a difficulty on this in the Gemara: and if they do touch one another, what of it — it is cold with cold. And we answered: granted that they do not require peeling, rinsing they do require. Moreover, this case is more severe, for many times the meat residue itself will stick to the cheese itself, or to the bread that he is eating on it, and he will eat meat and cheese in one grasp. And this is a clear matter. Therefore we are accustomed to guard ourselves greatly from this; one who guards his soul will keep far from them'.
> If so, according to the Rashba one may not eat dairy on a tablecloth on which meat was eaten, and likewise the reverse.
However, the Radbaz3 wrote: 'You asked concerning what the Rishonim wrote, that it is forbidden to eat cheese on a tablecloth on which they ate meat, and you said that you have never in your life seen a tablecloth designated for cheese and a tablecloth for meat. Answer: The Rashba z"l wrote at length in a responsum on this and forbade eating cheese on a meat tablecloth and eating meat on a cheese tablecloth .. And as to what you wrote, that you have not seen a tablecloth designated for meat and for cheese — so it is; but they have already accepted the practice to turn over the tablecloth on which they ate the cheese, and they also remove the crumbs from the table, as is found in the Yerushalmi. And if they ate meat, they no longer eat cheese until another seudah, and if there was meat residue there it has already dried and does not stick to the cheese. Furthermore, the words of the Rav apply only where they would place the meat and the cheese on the tablecloth, and then there is room for concern that they might stick to one another; but our minhag is to bring all food to the table in bowls, so that even if there is meat residue on the tablecloth, they will never touch one another. And if you say that we should be concerned lest the cheese fall from his hand onto the meat residue on the tablecloth, or the reverse — this is a remote concern and there is no need to be concerned about it at all. Furthermore, they have already accepted the practice of placing a small cloth before each person for wiping the hands, so that there is no residue at all on the tablecloth that is on the table; and as for the small cloth, it is visible to the eye whether there is meat on it or not. The rule of the matter: since they have accepted the practice to turn over the tablecloth, to remove the crumbs, and to bring the food in vessels, there is no concern at all, and it is permitted. And indeed [in the Yerushalmi] they were concerned only for the crumbs and not for the tablecloth; and it is forced to say that they ate at the table without a tablecloth; and even if you say that they did not eat on the tablecloth, the concern that exists regarding the tablecloth exists regarding the table. Rather, certainly we are not concerned for a series of doubts: perhaps some of the cooked dish fell and perhaps it did not fall; and if you say it certainly fell, perhaps it was from the gravy and perhaps from the meat itself; and if you say it was actually from the meat that it fell, perhaps [it stuck and perhaps] it did not stick to the cheese. Therefore, even to fulfil the stringency of the Rashba z"l, turning over the tablecloth alone suffices, together with removing the crumbs as per the view of the Yerushalmi, and so is the practice; and leave Yisroel be, for their minhag is Torah'4.
> That is to say, according to the Radbaz the Rashba was speaking with respect to their time, when the food was placed directly on the tablecloth; but nowadays, when the food is placed in plates and the like and not directly on the tablecloth, one may therefore use the same tablecloth, only that it should be turned over and the crumbs shaken off.
As a matter of halacha, the Mechaber wrote5: 'And it is forbidden to eat cheese on a tablecloth on which they ate meat'. And the Rema wrote in the Hagahah: 'And likewise the reverse is forbidden'.
And the Knesses HaGedolah wrote6: 'And the minhag nowadays, when they wish to eat a dish of cheese, is that they place a tablecloth on the table, and after they finish eating the cheese they remove that tablecloth and place the meat dish on the table; and those who are scrupulous merit two tables'.
And the Bach7 wrote: 'And for us, whose table is entirely covered, it is obvious that one must be careful that there be a tablecloth designated for meat and a tablecloth designated for cheese, for the reasons we have stated; and so is the practice'.
However, the Pischei Teshuvah8 brought the words of the Radbaz: 'See what he [=the Radbaz] wrote, that the words of the Rav apply only where they would place the meat and the cheese on the tablecloth, and then there is room for concern that they might stick to one another, but our minhag is to bring all food to the table in bowls, etc.; therefore, even to fulfil the stringency of the Rashba z"l, turning over the tablecloth alone together with removing the crumbs suffices, and so is the practice — thus far his words, see there'. And the Kaf HaChaim9 agreed with him.
However, the Minchas Yaakov10 wrote in the name of the Bach: 'And even if he does not place the food on the tablecloth itself but only in the bowl, the Bach in OC siman 173 likewise wrote that one must be careful, and in the Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah there he wrote, and this is his language: and those who are scrupulous merit two tables, end quote'. And so wrote the Chagoras Shmuel11: 'And he wrote .. even if he does not place the food on the tablecloth itself but only in the bowl, one must likewise be careful, thus far, see there'.
And on this basis the Mishmeres Shalom (Cherniak)12 wrote, Siftei Daas siman 89 s"k 22: '.. And from their words it is explained that one may not draw such a distinction; rather, even though they eat from bowls, nevertheless two tablecloths are required, and such is the practice of the people ..'.
> If so, one may not eat meat on a tablecloth or table on which cheese was eaten, and likewise the reverse, even in a case where the food is not placed directly on the tablecloth, unless the tablecloth was laundered or the table was cleaned well13.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shu"t vol. 1 siman 76. And in this vein it is written in the Teshuvos attributed to the Ramban siman 172 ↩
2 Chullin 97b ↩
3 Shu"t vol. 2 siman 721 ↩
4 And see what is written in the Badei HaShulchan siman 89, in the Biurim, s.v. 'v'assur le'echol gevinah', on the words of the Radbaz ↩
5 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 89 se'if 4 ↩
6 Shiyurei Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, OC siman 173 ↩
7 OC siman 173 ↩
8 YD ibid. s"k 8 ↩
9 YD ibid. s"k 67 ↩
10 Klal 76-77 s"k 17 ↩
11 On the Levush, YD ibid. os 27 ↩
12 YD ibid., Siftei Daas s"k 22 ↩
13 And see Sefer HaKashrus (perek 10 note 48), that with a table with a Formica covering, or a smooth oilcloth tablecloth of today, since they are smooth and without grooves, it is sufficient to clean them well ↩
[22] (Halacha 958)
In halacha number 955 we saw that one does not eat meat and milk on the same tablecloth.
Question: Is there a possibility for two people to eat at the same time on one tablecloth, one meat and one dairy?
[The discussion below is essentially not about the concern that they might eat from one another's food (which is explained in siman 88, and will be explained, with the help of Heaven, in the coming halachos), but rather about the concern of eating meat and dairy on the same tablecloth]
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Chullin1 states: 'Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat at one table, this one meat and this one cheese, and we are not concerned'. And it is explained in the Gemara: 'Rav Chanan bar Ami said in the name of Shmuel: They taught this only where they do not know one another, but where they know one another it is forbidden. So too it was taught in a beraisa: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests who lodged at one inn, this one came from the north and this one came from the south, this one came with his piece of meat and this one came with his cheese, may eat at one table, this one meat and this one cheese, and we are not concerned; and they forbade only in a case of one holding. Does "one holding" enter your mind? Rather: something resembling one holding'.
And the Tosfos2 and the Rosh3 wrote: 'And therefore the minhag now, when this one eats meat and this one eats cheese at one table, is that they place bread or a jug or other vessels to separate between them, or one eats on a different tablecloth, for that is like two holdings'.
And the Tur wrote4: 'But guests who do not know one another - it is permitted; and even those who know one another, if they made some recognizable distinction, such as that each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on one tablecloth and place bread between them for a recognizable distinction, it is permitted'.
> That is to say, according to the Tur there is no problem of eating on one tablecloth, one meat and one milk, for two who do not know one another, or where there is a recognizable distinction between those eating.
Except that the Or Zarua5 wrote: 'And so it is written in the responsa, that it was the minhag of Rabbeinu Kalonymus and Rabbeinu Yehudah zt"l that they would not drink from one cup when eating meat and cheese, and even when they were separated at the table; but there is no prohibition - rather he would do so as a distancing. And if two eat at one table, this one meat and this one cheese, there must be a tablecloth before this one and a tablecloth before this one, for a recognizable distinction'.
And although from the plain meaning of his words it appears that the need for two tablecloths is only on account of the recognizable distinction, so that they should not come to eat from one another, nevertheless in the Hagahos Ashri6, and similarly the Issur V'Heter HaAruch7, they wrote: 'It is written in a responsum: the minhag of Rabbeinu Kalonymus and Rabbeinu Yehudah, that they would not drink from one cup when they eat meat and cheese, and even when they were separated at the table; but there is no prohibition - rather he would do so as a distancing. And there must also be a tablecloth before this one and before this one. From the Or Zarua'.
From their words it appears that they understood that according to the Or Zarua the need for two tablecloths is in addition to the recognizable distinction; and so the Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe8: 'It further implies in the Aruch that we require a recognizable distinction and also two tablecloths, and one of them does not suffice; nevertheless the minhag is like the words of the Tur'.
Likewise the Maharsha"l in Yam Shel Shlomo9 wrote that the words of the Or Zarua are on account of the concern of eating on the same tablecloth, except that he wrote that this is a measure of piety: 'And the Or Zarua wrote that there must be a tablecloth before this one and before this one; that is, he holds [that even] if there is a separation between them, each one requires a tablecloth, so that they should not eat on one tablecloth even with a new tablecloth, for we are concerned lest they come to eat on that same tablecloth afterwards, and it is not fitting to eat upon it again, neither meat nor cheese, since there are upon it crumbs of food of meat and of cheese, as I explained above siman 8. And all that he wrote is not from the strict obligation, but it is a measure of piety and abstinence, as the Or Zarua wrote, that it is written in a responsum the minhag of ר"ק ור"י, that they would not drink from one cup when they eat meat and cheese, and even when they were separated at the table; but there is no prohibition, only on account of a distancing'.
Except that in his commentary Yerios Shlomo, on that which the Semag wrote10: 'And it is the minhag [so], to place bread or a jug to separate between those eating meat and those eating cheese' - the Maharsha"l wrote: 'The explanation is that it speaks of where they ate without a cloth, or on a new cloth that is neither of meat nor of cheese ..'11.
> Accordingly, according to the words of the Maharsha"l there is no concern with a new tablecloth [= pareve] where two eat, one dairy and one meat.
The Mechaber brought the words of the Tur12 as the halacha: 'And even those who know one another, if they made some recognizable distinction, such as that each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on one tablecloth and place bread between them for a recognizable distinction, it is permitted'.
The Bach13 likewise raised a difficulty with the language of the Tur [and the Mechaber] from the words of the Hagahos Ashri mentioned above: 'And that which he wrote, "or that each one should eat on his own tablecloth alone" - it implies that where they do not know one another, where we are not concerned, they may eat together on one tablecloth. And this is astonishing: is it not so that in the Hagahos Ashri, in the name of Rabbeinu Kalonymus and Rabbeinu Yehudah, and the Beis Yosef brings him, it is implied that even if they were separated at the table with a complete separation, there must also be a tablecloth before this one and before this one - which shows that it is forbidden to eat meat and cheese on one tablecloth, because meat sticks in the place of cheese together on the tablecloth; or alternatively, that the hot bowl with meat will absorb from cheese that sticks to the tablecloth, and likewise the reverse .. And it may be resolved that they were careful to fix a special place on the table for meat and a special place for milk; or alternatively, that they had two tables, one for meat and one for milk. And as for us, where the whole table is covered, it is obvious that one must be careful that there be a tablecloth designated for meat and a tablecloth designated for cheese, for the reasons we have said; and so is the minhag'.
> Accordingly, the Bach disagrees with the Tur and the Mechaber, and according to his words there is no permit to eat meat and milk on one tablecloth.
But the Magen Avraham14 rejected his words and wrote to explain [as the Maharsha"l wrote]: 'And it appears to me that here it speaks of a new tablecloth, or one that was laundered well, and this one eats at its one end and this one eats at the other end, so that they do not touch one another; and this is plain'15.
> Accordingly, in practice it is permitted for two people to eat on a new or laundered tablecloth, one meat and one milk, provided that there is a recognizable distinction between them, or that they are people who do not know one another.
Notes:
1 107b ↩
2 d"h k'ein tefisah achas ↩
3 Chullin perek 8, siman 20 ↩
4 YD siman 88 ↩
5 Hilchos Basar V'Cholov siman 462 ↩
6 On the Rosh there ↩
7 Sha'ar 40, siman 13 ↩
8 YD siman 88, os 1 ↩
9 Chullin perek 8, siman 43 ↩
10 Lavin siman 141. The Derishah brought him in the gloss of the Sma printed on the Shulchan Aruch ↩
11 And see what the Derishah wrote in OC siman 173, os 7 ↩
12 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 88 se'if 2 ↩
13 OC siman 173 ↩
14 Siman 173 in the introduction ↩
15 And see also the Yad Avraham (YD siman 89 se'if 4); and from his words it appears that one may do this even on a permanent basis in the home, to eat on one long tablecloth, on one side meat and on one side dairy. However, in Mishmeres HaBayis ch. 4, note 29, he noted that a distinction may be made, that in siman 88 it speaks of a temporary situation, whereas in a permanent arrangement mishaps are more common ↩
[23] (halacha 959)
Question: May one use the same knife to cut bread for a meat seudah and for a dairy seudah?
Answer: The Rashba wrote1 [and the same is written in the Teshuvos attributed to the Ramban2]: 'And all the more so is it forbidden to cut cheese, even cold cheese, with a knife that is regularly used for cutting meat. And not only that, but even the bread that is eaten with the cheese may not be cut with a knife with which meat is cut. For on most knives the fat of the meat is congealed upon their surface, and when one cuts the bread with it, it adheres to the bread. And as we say: a radish that one cut with a knife may be eaten with kutach; and we established that this is specifically where one tasted it and there is no taste of meat at all. And it is possible that the tasting of a kefeila is required, in accordance with the view of Rashi z"l. And we also say that with a cucumber and a melon one scrapes away at the place of the cut. And this is obvious.'
And in Sefer HaTerumah3 he wrote: 'And if one wishes to cut cold cheese with a knife with which he cut meat, or the reverse, that he wishes to cut cold meat with a dairy knife or with a non-Jew's knife, the knife first requires thrusting into the ground ten times. The last chapter of Avodah Zarah: a knife — one hones it and it is tahor; and it is explained there that one thrusts it ten times into the ground. And if there are notches in the knife, so that it is not smooth, it is explained there that thrusting into the ground does not suffice, and one may say that he should rub it with a soft stone or with charcoal, so that it enters the notches, and that suffices. And these words apply to cutting cold food.'
However, the Orchos Chaim4 cited the above words of the Rashba, and wrote: 'And Rabbeinu Shimshon z"l would permit cutting bread with a meat knife and eating it with cheese, since this is nat b'nat, but to cut cheese with it is certainly forbidden unless he thrust it into the ground ten times, or rubbed it with a soft stone or with charcoal; so wrote the B"H z"l. However, without wiping, even bread is forbidden, because of the grease upon it. And an incident came before R. Shimshon z"l concerning his maidservant, who cut non-Jews' cheese with a meat knife, and that cheese they [had heated] over the fire; and the Rav said that the knife is kosher and requires only rinsing, as we say: cold into cold — one rinses; and this too is [like] cold, since it is not yad soledes bo.'
> If so, according to the view of the Rashba, since grease congeals upon the knife, it is forbidden to cut bread that is eaten with cheese with a meat knife, and all the more so one may not cut cheese with a meat knife until he thrusts it into hard ground. However, according to Rabbeinu Shimshon the prohibition is only to cut cheese, but bread is permitted if he wiped the knife. And Sefer HaTerumah wrote that even [cold] cheese may be permitted to be cut with a smooth knife by thrusting the knife into the ground ten times, and with a knife that is not smooth by rubbing it with a soft stone or with charcoal.
[The Raavyah5 wrote: 'And these words apply where it was used while hot and he wishes to cut cold food with it; but if it was used with cold food and he wishes to cut a cold item with it, rinsing suffices for him, provided that no forbidden substance appears stuck to it. But in the Piskei of Rabbeinu Shmuel it is written: and a knife with which milk was cut, or with which meat was scored — one thrusts it ten times or rubs it on hard ground and rinses it, and that suffices for him, since it was not used with hot food. And my words appear more correct than his, since he ruled in the chapter Hakol Shochtin regarding a knife with which one slaughtered a treifah, and the halacha is with cold food, [and it concludes] that if there is a worn cloth with which to wipe it, nothing further is required. And there I explained this matter well in this sefer.']
The Beis Yosef6 cited the above, [and as for the leniency of Rabbeinu Shimshon, he wrote that so they wrote in his name in Sefer HaTerumah].
And the Rema wrote in Toras HaChatas7: 'And all the more so is it forbidden to cut bread with a knife with which meat is eaten and to eat the bread with cheese, because of the fat that adheres to the knife; and such is the practice, unlike the Beis Yosef, who wrote in siman 89 in the name of the Orchos Chaim that it is permitted, however, if he first wiped the knife well and thrust it into hard ground, it is permitted to cut with it the bread that he wishes to eat with cheese'.
And the Maharsha"l8 wrote: 'And it appears that what was written above, that to cut cheese is forbidden unless he thrust it — which implies that with thrusting it is permitted l'chatchila — is not correct, for they permitted thrusting only where it happened by chance that meat was cut with a dairy knife, or the reverse, in which case thrusting is required to render it permitted from the issur; but to permit l'chatchila to cut cheese with a meat knife by means of thrusting is not proper, but only by hagalah, and upon this the practice in all our lands is that every Jew has two knives, and it does not suffice for them to have a meat knife alone and to thrust it into the ground when he comes to eat bread [with] cheese with it. And I have seen among the meticulous that they have three knives: one designated for meat, one for dairy, and one to cut bread with, for the purpose of eating. And it is a mitzvah min hamuvchar, as the Or Zarua9 wrote, and these are his words: and it is a mitzvah [min hamuvchar] that where one ate cheese and wishes to eat meat afterwards, he must remove from the table the bread and every food that came up on the table with the cheese, and afterwards he should bring meat and eat, end of quote. [And the same applies to] a different tablecloth, as I wrote in siman 49.'
From the words of the Maharsha"l it appears that l'chatchila, even with thrusting into the ground, it is not proper to cut bread with a meat knife in order to eat it with cheese.
[And to explain the words of the poskim, that this case is not comparable to the laws of nat bar nat, the Pri Chodosh10 wrote: 'In the Beis Yosef he cited that Rabbeinu Shimshon would permit cutting bread with a meat knife and eating it with cheese, since this is nat bar nat. And this is not sufficient for us, except to say that if he already cut bread with it, it is permitted to eat it with cheese, but not to permit cutting l'chatchila, for we permit nat bar nat only b'dieved, as is precise from the language of 'fish that came up in a dish', and as below at the beginning of siman [95]. But according to what the Beis Yosef cited [there] in the name of the Ramban [Teshuvos HaMeyuchasos LaRamban], that it is forbidden to cut, since sometimes the fat of meat is congealed upon the knives and when one cuts the bread it adheres to it — even b'dieved it is forbidden to eat it with cheese, unless the knife was well wiped, as below in siman 94 s"k [25], see there.']
> If so, we have seen that the poskim differ: some wrote that it is permitted to cut bread with a meat knife after wiping the knife, and thrusting into the ground is not required; some wrote that thrusting into the ground or vigorous rubbing is required in order to clean it, and then it is permitted to use it in this way. And some wrote that l'chatchila, even after thrusting, one should not cut bread with a meat knife in order to eat it with cheese. And in the following halacha we shall see how the poskim ruled in practice.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shu"t vol. 1 siman 76 ↩
2 siman 172 ↩
3 Hilchos Issur V'Heter siman 71 ↩
4 Hilchos Issurei Maachalos os 60 ↩
5 Teshuvos U'Biurei Sugyos siman 1080 ↩
6 YD siman 89 ↩
7 Klal 76-77, din 7 ↩
8 Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin perek 8, siman 8 ↩
9 vol. 1 siman 460 ↩
10 YD siman 89 s"k 22 ↩
[24] (halacha 960)
Using one knife for meat and dairy (2)
In the previous halacha we saw the views of the Rishonim regarding using a meat knife to cut bread to be eaten with cheese.
a) However, some wrote that in practice they do not differ; rather, the words of Rabbeinu Shimshon, who permitted cutting bread by rinsing the knife alone [whereas to cut cheese thrusting is required], refer to a sha'as hadechak, as the Bach1 wrote: 'However, it certainly appears that this is specifically in a sha'as hadechak, where he has no other knife, such as one travelling on the road; but in his home it is forbidden to cut bread even by means of wiping, lest he not wipe it very well. And this is the view of the Ramban and the Rashba, whom the Beis Yosef cited in their name, who forbade cutting bread without qualification and did not write that it is permitted by means of wiping; rather, they certainly speak of where he is in his home, whereas the ruling of Rabbeinu Shimshon speaks of one on the road, which is a sha'as hadechak. And the great ones do not differ with one another; rather, this one concedes to that one and that one concedes to this one, and so we hold.'
> That is to say, according to the Bach there is agreement among the Rishonim that l'chatchila we do not rely on the cleaning of the knife, lest he not clean it well, but in a sha'as hadechak they permit it.
b) Likewise, we saw in the previous halacha the view of the Maharsha"l, who was stringent not to rely on thrusting at all, but only b'dieved, and the Knesses HaGedolah2 wrote that the Acharonim differ as to his view: 'But I have seen a difference in this among the later poskim, for the words of the Rashal speak clearly, that he protested only regarding those who wish to cut cheese with a meat knife, but where one comes to cut bread to eat with cheese, it is possible that even thrusting is not required, only wiping; and such is the agreement of the Bach and the Taz. But from the words of the Shach it appears that the Rashal forbids, by means of thrusting, even to cut bread to eat cheese with it'.
The Minchas Yaakov3 agreed with the Bach and the Taz, that the Maharsha"l was not stringent regarding bread: '.. And further, it appears to me plain and clear that it never entered the mind of the Maharsha"l to object except to Rabbeinu Shimshon, who permits l'chatchila, by means of thrusting, to cut cheese with a meat knife; upon this the Maharsha"l wrote that it is not correct, but regarding bread even the Maharsha"l concedes that it is permitted, and so it is explicitly explained from his words there in the simanim of the Maharsha"l4. And that with which the Maharsha"l concluded there, and these are his words: and it does not suffice for them to have one knife with thrusting and to cut with it bread and cheese, end of quote — there is a demonstrable error here, for it cannot be reconciled at all, and it appears to me that the word "bread" should be emended, as is explained there from the plain sense of the Maharsha"l, see there. And even if he means that the Maharsha"l specifically said bread, in any case it is explained there from his words that he wrote all this only from the standpoint of the practice, according to what is practised among all of Israel, to have two knives, one for dairy and one for meat; therefore even regarding bread they adopted the practice to forbid, and so wrote the Rav in the Shulchan Aruch at the end of siman 89, and the Shach himself there. But certainly, by the strict law, the view of the Maharsha"l and of the Rav here and in the Shulchan Aruch are the same. All this appears clear to one who examines the Maharsha"l there. And see the Taz at the end of siman 89, who concluded, and these are his words: but in any case, to cut bread with it in order to eat cheese, in this we may well rely on the fact that one wipes it first, end of quote.'
c) In practical halacha the Mechaber5 wrote in the Shulchan Aruch: 'And all the more so is it forbidden to cut cheese, even cold cheese, with a knife that is regularly used to cut meat. And not only that, but even the bread that is eaten with the cheese may not be cut with a knife with which meat is cut'.
And the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'And likewise the reverse is also forbidden. However, by means of thrusting into hard ground, it is permitted'.
And the Acharonim differ in understanding the words of the Rema. The Taz6 wrote: 'However, by means of thrusting, etc. This refers to what he wrote, that one wishes to cut cheese with a meat knife, but regarding what he wrote, that it is forbidden to cut bread, etc., that is not required, only wiping the knife, as is implied in the Beis Yosef in what he wrote in the name of the Orchos Chaim in the name of Rabbeinu Shimshon; and there the reason is written, that it is nat bar nat. And for us this is not needed, for it is explained in siman 96 that only with a sharp food do we say that it absorbs, because of the pressure of the knife.' And afterwards he likewise wrote7: 'But in any case, to cut bread with it in order to eat cheese, in this we may well rely on the fact that one wipes it first; so it appears to me, plainly.'
> That is to say, according to the Taz the law of thrusting was stated regarding the use of a meat knife to cut a dairy item, but in order to cut bread it is sufficient merely to clean the knife [and as the Bach wrote above in the case of a sha'as hadechak].
But the Shach in Nekudos HaKesef differed with him, and wrote: 'This is not so, and as is explained explicitly in Toras Chatas .. that even to cut bread with it to eat with cheese requires thrusting .. And what he wrote, that for us this is not needed, etc., is of no substance, for here we did not forbid it because of actual absorption, since it is cold with cold; rather, because the knife's grease is smeared upon its surface, and since its use is constant, wiping does not suffice for it. And the Maharsha"l is stringent here, that even thrusting does not help.'
And the Shach there8 already explained his view: 'It implies that if he thrust it into hard ground it is permitted l'chatchila to cut with it bread to eat with cheese, and so it is implied from the words of the Orchos Chaim and the Kol Bo there, and so it is written in Toras Chatas .. explicitly. And the Maharsha"l .. forbids cutting with it bread to eat with cheese even if he thrust it, for they permitted thrusting only where it happened by chance that they cut with a meat knife, or the reverse, in which case thrusting is required to render it permitted from the issur, which is not so in a case such as this — end of his words. And this is difficult, for we hold that if one cut a turnip with a meat knife, so that its taste was nullified in the turnip, it is permitted to cut with it even a radish to eat it with kutach, as below at the end of siman 96, and as the Maharsha"l himself wrote there in siman 61; and all the more so other foods that are not sharp. And it is certain that thrusting is superior to cutting a turnip .. And all this is by the strict law; but all of Israel have already adopted the practice of having two knives, as the Rav wrote in the gloss. And in a sha'as hadechak, where he has no other knife, we establish it according to the strict law. And see what the Bach wrote on this. And in my humble opinion it appears as I have written.'
> If so, according to the Shach the intent of the Rema here in the Shulchan Aruch is as his words in Toras HaChatas, that the law of thrusting was stated regarding cutting bread with a meat knife for the purpose of eating it with dairy. And in addition, the Shach mentioned the view of the Maharsha"l, that the law of thrusting for bread applies only b'dieved, and rejected his words.
And in practice many Acharonim ruled like the view of the Shach, as the Knesses HaGedolah9 wrote, and the Pri Chodosh10. And so wrote the Toras Yekusiel11, that the Taz went beyond measure in being lenient, and so wrote the Yad Yehudah12.
> If so, l'chatchila washing a meat knife does not suffice in order to cut bread with it for a dairy meal; rather, thrusting13 into the ground14 is required. However, the practice l'chatchila is to designate separate knives, as we shall see further on.
Notes:
1 YD siman 89 ↩
2 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD ibid. s"k 16 ↩
3 Klal 76-77 s"k 18 ↩
4 And so it is written in the Zer Zahav ↩
5 YD ibid. se'if 4 ↩
6 Ibid. s"k 6 ↩
7 s"k 7 ↩
8 s"k 22 ↩
9 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD ibid. os 16 ↩
10 YD ibid. s"k 23 ↩
11 YD ibid. s"k 3 ↩
12 Peirush HaKatzar s"k 34 ↩
13 The law of thrusting into the ground will be explained in a separate halacha ↩
14 However, there are also Acharonim who were lenient like the Taz, as the Chochmas Adam wrote, Sha'ar Issur V'Heter klal 40 se'if 14, and others. And it is written in Kaf HaChaim YD ibid. s"k 72: 'Where thrusting is not possible, one may be lenient like the words of the Taz. And so wrote the Mishbetzos Zahav, os 6' ↩
[25] (halacha 961)
Using one knife for meat and dairy (3)
Question: Does thrusting also help for using the knife to cut cheese as well?
Answer: It is important to clarify that in this halacha we are dealing with a case in which the knife with which one wishes to cut is cold and not hot, and the concern is on account of the fat and the residue upon the knife, and not on account of absorptions.
In halacha number 959 we saw the words of the Rishonim, and in the previous halacha we saw that the Rema in Toras Chatas1 permitted thrusting a knife for the purpose of cutting bread, and these are his words: 'However, if he first wiped the knife well and thrust it into hard ground, it is permitted to cut with it the bread that he wishes to eat with cheese'.
And so the Rema wrote in Darkei Moshe2 in the name of the Kol Bo: 'And the Kol Bo3 wrote: however, if he wiped the knife well and thrust it thoroughly into the ground, it is permitted to cut the bread, end of quote'.
However, in the Shulchan Aruch4, in the gloss of the Rema, he did not specify which case he is speaking of, but rather left his words unqualified, and wrote: 'However, by means of thrusting into hard ground, it is permitted'.
And the Toras HaAsham5 wrote on the words of the Rema in Toras Chatas: 'However, if he wiped it, etc., and thrust it into hard ground, it is permitted to cut the bread with it, etc. So he wrote in Darkei Moshe in the name of the Kol Bo. But had he gone to the end of the above-mentioned Orchos Chaim, he would have permitted even the cheese itself, for so he wrote: and to cut cheese is certainly forbidden unless he thrust it into the ground ten times, or rubbed it with a stone or with charcoal, end of quote. And in his glosses to the Shulchan Aruch it is implied that he permits even the cheese itself'.
And so the Knesses HaGedolah6 wrote: 'And from the words of the Rema it is proven that by the strict law it is permitted, by means of thrusting, even to cut cheese, but in Toras Chatas, klal 77 siman 7, this is not implied, for he wrote: however, if he first wiped the knife and thrust it into hard ground, it is permitted to cut with it the bread that he wishes to eat with cheese, end of quote. This implies that to cut the cheese itself thrusting does not help, like the words of the Rashal'.
> If so, according to their view the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch permitted, by means of thrusting, to cut with a meat knife even cheese, and not only bread.
And we have already seen in the previous halacha that such is also the understanding of the Taz, who holds that in order to cut bread wiping suffices and thrusting is not required; and if so, when the Rema wrote to permit by means of thrusting, his intent is certainly to permit cutting actual cheese.
However, we saw in the previous halacha that the view of the Shach in the Rema's intent is that for bread thrusting is required; and accordingly the Acharonim differ as to whether, when the Rema permitted by means of thrusting, this includes also a permission to cut the cheese itself or not. For the Pri Megadim7 wrote: 'And it is implied that to cut cheese is forbidden even by means of thrusting, since he did not write the greater novelty; and so the language of the Rema implies, since it refers to that. And in siman 121, with a knife of issur it is more lenient, which is not so from meat to dairy, lest he forget. And he differs with the Taz on two counts: that wiping does not help for bread, for even though it is nat bar nat, in any case l'chatchila it is forbidden to eat it with dairy, even according to the Mechaber, in siman 95; and that for cheese thrusting does not help'.
> That is to say, the Pri Megadim holds that from the language of the Shach and the Rema it is understood that the permission of thrusting helps only in order to cut bread and not in order to cut cheese. And that which the Pri Megadim wrote, that so the language of the Rema implies, since it refers to that — his intent is that since the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch wrote two cases: a) the more stringent one, that it is forbidden to cut cheese with a meat knife; b) a more lenient case, that it is also forbidden to cut bread — if so, it stands to reason that the Rema, who wrote the permission of thrusting after the second case (cutting bread), is dealing specifically with it, and not with the more stringent case (cutting cheese) that was written before it8.
However, we have already seen that the Toras HaAsham and the Knesses HaGedolah understood from the unqualified language of the Rema that it applies to both cases, unlike the understanding of the Pri Megadim.
The Zivchei Tzedek9 also wondered at what the Pri Megadim wrote, that this is implied from the language of the Rema and the Shach: 'There is also room for study in the words of the Sifsei Da'as s"k 22, who explained the intent of the Shach to be that to cut cheese is forbidden even by means of thrusting, since he did not write the greater novelty, see there. And this is not so, for that which the Shach said, to cut bread with it, is not to exclude that cutting cheese is forbidden; rather, he means to say that even to cut bread with it requires thrusting and wiping does not help, and to exclude the view of the Taz s"k 6. And so it is implied from what the Shach wrote in Nekudos HaKesef, and these are his words: that even to cut bread with it to eat with cheese requires thrusting, see there. Also, what he wrote, that so it is implied from the Rema, has no substance at all, and it requires study'.
> And accordingly the Kaf HaChaim10 wrote that it is permitted l'chatchila to cut cheese by means of thrusting.
But all this is by the strict law, whereas the Taz11 wrote that according to the practice one should not rely on thrusting [and therefore they adopted the practice of designating separate knives, as was brought in the name of the Maharsha"l in the previous halachos, and will be brought from the Rema in the following halacha]: 'It appears that his intent is that according to the practice it is forbidden to cut cheese with a meat knife even by means of thrusting into the ground, for so they were stringent upon themselves, to take specifically another knife for cheese, but in any case, to cut bread with it in order to eat cheese, in this we may well rely on the fact that one wipes it first; so it appears to me, plainly'.
However, the Kaf HaChaim12 wrote: 'However, see above, os 68, where it is implied that even according to the practice it is permitted by means of thrusting, see there. And it appears to me that the reason is that he holds that this matter was not included in the practice, for it is a different matter, in that he renders it permitted by means of an act; and the practice applies to one for whom it is possible and who has already prepared'.
> If so, we have seen that according to most of the Acharonim, by the strict law the permission of thrusting helps also in order to cut cheese; however, the Taz wrote that on account of the practice one does not do so. And we shall see further details regarding this practice in the following halacha.
--------------
Notes:
1 Klal 76-77, din 7 ↩
2 YD siman 91 s"k 2 ↩
3 siman 106, 78d ↩
4 siman 89 se'if 4 ↩
5 Klal 76-77, din 7 ↩
6 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD siman 89 os 16 ↩
7 YD, Siftei Daas siman 89 s"k 22 ↩
8 See also in Meged Shamayim, Chelek YD os 12 ↩
9 YD ibid. s"k 51 ↩
10 siman 89 s"k 68 and 73 ↩
11 Ibid. s"k 7 ↩
12 Ibid. os 74 ↩
[26] (halacha 962)
Using one knife for meat and dairy (4)
In the previous halachos we saw that the poskim wrote that by the strict law one may use a meat knife for cheese by first thrusting the knife into the ground.
Question: How is the thrusting performed?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Avodah Zarah1 says: 'The knife — one hones it and it is tahor'. And it is explained in the Gemara2: 'Rav Ukva bar Chama said: and one thrusts it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: and into ground that is not worked. Rav Kahana said: and with a good knife that has no notches. It was likewise taught in a beraisa: a good knife that has no notches — one thrusts it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna the son of Rav Yehoshua said: to eat cold food with it. As in that case of Mar Yehuda and Bati bar Tuvi, who were sitting before King Shapur. They brought an esrog before them; he cut a piece and ate, cut a piece and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi, then thrust it ten times into the ground, cut a piece and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man not a Jew? He said to him: Of this master I am certain, and of that master I am not certain. Some say that he said to him: Remember what you did last night'.
And we find several views among the Rishonim in explaining the sugya, as follows3:
a) Rashi wrote: 'And one thrusts it — even though he honed it; and some say that he rubs it with a woollen cloth that is not smooth, and it removes its grease'.
And the Beis Yosef4 wrote: 'And as for one hones it, Rashi explained5: he polishes it with a blacksmith's stone. And even though in the Gemara he wrote: and some say that he rubs it with a woollen cloth that is not smooth and it removes its grease, it appears to me that this is according to his own view, which requires both honing and thrusting'.
> That is to say, according to Rashi the permission of thrusting is in addition to an act of honing or rubbing to remove the fat; and since two acts are required, therefore in place of honing with a blacksmith's stone it is sufficient to rub with wool.
b) The Rosh6 wrote: 'Rashi explained that both honing and thrusting are required. And this is not correct, for why did the Mishnah not explain the entire requirement of the kashering? And further, the incident of King Shapur would be difficult, for he did only thrusting. Rather, it is certain that either this is required or this is required'. And so wrote the Rashba7, and the Ran8.
> If so, according to the Rosh and many other Rishonim, the permission of thrusting is not dependent upon honing, and each one permits on its own.
However, both according to Rashi and according to the Rosh, this speaks of thrusting for the purpose of use with cold food, and not with hot, as is explained in the Gemara.
★ ★ ★
The Rishonim further differ as to how many times one must thrust it. For in the Gemara above we saw that one must thrust ten times; however, in the Talmud Yerushalmi9 it is written: 'A knife — one inserts it into the ground three times and that suffices'.
And the Ran10 wrote: 'And in Tosfos they wrote that ten times is not precise, and this is why in the Yerushalmi we read three times; which shows that what we say in our Gemara, ten times, is only to say that he must thrust it into the ground in order to remove the smear of the forbidden substance upon its surface very well'.
And in like manner the Rosh wrote there: 'Rav Huna said: one thrusts it ten times into the ground. Ten is not precise, for in the Yerushalmi it says three times'.
However, in the Tosfos11 that we have it is written: 'And one thrusts it ten times into the ground — in the Yerushalmi it says three times, which implies that here ten times is not precise; however, from what we say further on, that he thrust it ten times into the ground, it implies that it was said precisely, and one should be stringent'.
And so wrote the Rambam12: 'One who buys a knife from a non-Jew heats it white-hot in fire or grinds it on their millstone; and if it was a good knife that has no nicks, it suffices for him if he thrust it into hard ground ten times, and he eats cold food with it; and if it had nicks, or it was good but he wished to eat hot food with it or to slaughter with it, he heats it white-hot or grinds all of it'. And so wrote the Rashba13.
> If so, the Rishonim differ as to whether one must thrust it ten times or whether thrusting three times suffices.
In practical halacha the Mechaber14 wrote in accordance with the words of the Rambam: 'An old knife, whether large or small, that was bought from a non-Jew: if he comes to use it with cold food, if it has no notches he thrusts it ten times into hard ground. And each and every thrust must be into hard ground; therefore he should not thrust it in a place where he made another thrust. And even to cut with it a sharp food such as a radish, this suffices. And if it has notches .. he heats it white-hot or grinds it well with a blacksmith's grindstone over its entire surface'.
[The Bais Hillel15 wrote: 'And I have already written in siman 1016 that the law of thrusting is specifically ten times, that is to say, that he thrusts and thrusts again, up to ten times. And not as people are accustomed to do, to leave it in hard ground for a short while, and this does not help at all, see there'].
But regarding the law of thrusting the Rema wrote there: 'And to use it on a permanent basis, it is no worse than other vessels, which it is customary to kasher by hagalah even for cold use'.
> If so, we have seen the source of the law of thrusting into the ground for the purpose of use, and in the following halacha we shall see whether other methods of cleaning help in place of thrusting.
--------------
Notes:
1 75b ↩
2 76b ↩
3 The Pilpula Charifta wrote (Avodah Zarah perek 5, siman 36:7): 'And it appears to me that it depends on the variant versions, for Rashi copied ונועצה with a vav, and so it is in the Gemara; but in the Rif it is written נועצה without a vav, and that is the version of Rabbeinu' ↩
4 YD siman 121 ↩
5 75b, d"h shafah ↩
6 Avodah Zarah perek 5, siman 36 ↩
7 Chiddushim, Avodah Zarah 75b ↩
8 Avodah Zarah 39b of the pages of the Rif ↩
9 Avodah Zarah perek 5 halacha 15 ↩
10 40a of the pages of the Rif ↩
11 Ibid. 76b, d"h hasakin ↩
12 Hilchos Maachalos Assuros ch. 17, halacha 7 ↩
13 Toras HaBayis ibid. 36a ↩
14 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 121 se'if 7 ↩
15 YD siman 89 s"k 3 ↩
16 s"k 2 ↩
[27] (halacha 965)
Using one knife for meat and dairy (5)
The minhag of two or three knives — and the marking of vessels
The Rema wrote in Toras HaChatas1: 'That which they have adopted the practice of marking dairy vessels, so that meat should not be eaten in them, is a fine minhag, and so we say in the first chapter of Chullin2 regarding a butcher, that he requires two knives; and so wrote the Mordechai regarding yayin nesech'.
And so the Rema wrote in the Shulchan Aruch3: 'But all of Israel have already adopted the practice of having two knives, and of marking one of them so that he should have a distinguishing sign. And they adopted the practice of marking the dairy one, and one should not deviate from the minhag of Israel'.
And the Maharsha"l4 wrote that there were those who were particular about three knives: 'And upon this the practice in all our lands is that every Jew has two knives, and it does not suffice for them to have a meat knife alone and to thrust it into the ground when he comes to eat bread [with] cheese with it, and I have seen among the meticulous that they have three knives: one designated for meat, one for dairy, and one to cut bread with, for the purpose of eating'.
And the Toras HaAsham5 explained: 'And it appears to me that their reason is that if they cut the bread with the knife designated for that purpose, he will afterwards be able to eat the bread either with meat or with cheese; which is not so when he cuts the bread with the meat knife, in which case even what remains of the bread from that eating he will no longer be able to eat with dairy, and likewise the reverse, unless he peels the bread'.
The Pri Chodosh6 cited the words of the Maharsha"l: 'And the meticulous have three knives, one for cheese and one for meat and one to cut bread with, and it is a proper minhag'. And the Chagoras Shmuel7 wrote: 'And the man who fears and trembles at the word of Hashem should conduct himself so'.
And so wrote the Darkei Teshuvah8: 'And see the Shulchan Gavoah at the end of this siman, who testified that such is the practice, see there; and so the practice has spread in our lands as well'.
> If so, we have seen that the Rema wrote that the minhag of Israel is to have two knives, one for meat and one for dairy, and the Maharsha"l added that there are meticulous ones who have three knives, that is to say, a separate knife for bread9.
And regarding what the Rema wrote, to mark the dairy knife, the Toras HaAsham wrote there that the law of marking applies to all the vessels and not only to knives: 'That which they have adopted the practice of marking dairy vessels, etc. He speaks of all the vessels, not of knives alone, and it is stated explicitly in the first chapter of Chullin, daf 8b, regarding knives, and regarding rinsing vessels: with meat and dairy, since he has two of them, he has a distinguishing sign. And Rashi explained: he makes a sign on them; and so wrote the Rosh there10'.
And regarding the manner of the marking, the Vikuach Mayim Chaim11 wrote: 'And people have adopted the practice of cutting grooves into dairy vessels, and there is some allusion to these grooves from this verse12: ואת עשרת חריצי החלב וגו''.
And the Levush13 wrote: 'And they adopted the practice of marking and cutting grooves into the dairy one, and one should not deviate from the minhag; for if he were to deviate from the minhag and cut grooves into the meat one, even though he would recognise it, others would come to err in it and to eat dairy with it, since most of Israel cut grooves into the dairy one and give as a sign the grooves of milk'.
And so wrote the Divrei Chamudos14: 'And it appears to me that this is so that one should not make a sign on his own dairy vessel while another makes a sign on his own meat vessel, and each one would err with the other's; and therefore they established a rule and supported it from a verse, so that no person should do so except with the dairy one, and they should not come to err, neither with their own nor with others''.
And more than that, he wrote in his sefer Toras HaAsham there: 'And it appears to me that not only is it improper to deviate from the minhag, [but] here I say something stronger, that it is forbidden to deviate. And this is the reason: because by his deviating and marking the meat one in the manner in which the dairy one is marked, there is room to be concerned that ruin will come of it; for since the minhag is to mark the dairy one, if someone comes from the street into his house and wishes to eat cheese there, he will take for himself the one that is marked, relying on the minhag that they mark the dairy one, and he will be found eating cheese with a meat knife. And likewise the reverse. And as I wrote in the sefer Lechem Chamudos .. And I also wrote there that the marking with which they mark is that they make three grooves15, and they supported it from what is written in Sefer Shmuel: [עשרה] חריצי חלב'.
The Pri Megadim16 wrote: 'And one who finds a grooved knife in a street of Jews — it is certainly a dairy one'.
And the Aruch HaShulchan wrote17: 'And small and large bowls in the house, those for meat alone and those for dairy alone, should be made of two different kinds, as a distinguishing sign, so that they should not be interchanged; and likewise with spoons and forks, and likewise all the vessels; or to make grooves on the dairy ones, and so all of Israel have adopted the practice. And one who finds a grooved knife in a street of Jews — it is certainly a dairy one [פמ"ג], and likewise all the vessels'.
> If so, in practice one must be careful with the customary marking, so that people should not become confused. And in earlier times the practice was to make three grooves in the dairy vessels, while today many have the practice of marking the meat ones in red and the dairy ones in blue18.
--------------
Notes:
1 Klal 76-77, din 8 ↩
2 8b ↩
3 YD siman 89 se'if 4 in the Hagahah ↩
4 Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin perek 8, siman 8. 5On the Toras Chatas ibid. ↩
5 YD siman 89 s"k 24 ↩
6 On the Levush YD ibid. s"k 29 ↩
7 YD ibid. s"k 53 ↩
8 And there is one who wrote (Mishmeres HaBayis ch. 4, note 30) that it is a hiddur to prepare an additional knife for the need of sharp food ↩
9 perek 1, siman 11. 11On the Toras Chatas ibid. ↩
10 Shmuel I 17:18 ↩
11 YD ibid. se'if 4 ↩
12 Chullin perek 1, siman 11 ↩
13 The Darkei Teshuvah wrote there, s"k 55: 'Know that the minhag is to make three grooves in the dairy one; and see Shu"t Adnei Paz there, who wrote a reason for this minhag of making three grooves — see there'. And in s"k 54 he wrote: 'And it is written in Shu"t Adnei Paz, in the Hashmatos, daf 39, in the third question: one who has two kinds of knives, of dairy and of meat, and they differ in their handles, so that one knows by the sign which kind of handle is the dairy one — must he specifically mark it? And he answered on this, and this is his language: And as to the question whether one may rely on two kinds of knife handles, so that he will have a sign as to which of them is dairy — it appears to me that one should not do so, for we are concerned that at times another person will use them for meat, since they have no grooves, end quote' ↩
14 YD, Mishbetzos Zahav siman 89 s"k 7 ↩
15 YD siman 89 se'if 16 ↩
16 See Mishmeres HaBayis ch. 4 se'if 24. Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 89 note 204 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group