Matters that are forbidden because of danger
[1] (Halacha 47)
Introduction: Some of the poskim wrote that things that are forbidden on account of danger are a prohibition d'Oraisa. But according to the shitah of the Alter Rebbe it is a prohibition d'Rabbanan. And so the Alter Rebbe writes: 'The Chachomim forbade many things because they involve danger to life, and whoever transgresses them and says, I am endangering myself and what concern is it of others regarding me, or, I am not particular about this - is liable to makkas mardus'.
That is to say, although all the things that we will see further on are things whose reason for being forbidden is to prevent harm to the person, and seemingly a person could say, what do you care about me, this is my problem!
Nevertheless the Chachomim instituted these prohibitions, and one who transgresses this is given makkas mardus.
And from here one can see how beloved and precious the body of a Jew is to the Holy One, blessed be He; and it is with us as a deposit, and it is upon us to guard it with the utmost care, and certainly we have no right to damage it knowingly.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 4. ↩
[2] (Halacha 48)
Rules - part one:
a. These prohibitions, which were forbidden on account of danger, are of great stringency, and therefore, despite the principle that a safek d'rabbanan is treated leniently, in these prohibitions we are in many instances stringent even in a case of safek, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition!
b. In a case where something that is forbidden on account of danger fell into another item, the poskim are divided as to whether the law of nullification of the prohibition in sixty can be applied to it. There are those who hold that since danger is more stringent than a prohibition, we do not apply the law of nullification to this, and the entire mixture will be forbidden. However, in practice we rule like the poskim who hold that the law of nullification in sixty applies also to prohibitions of danger.
Notes:
1 a. Shulchan Aruch YD siman 116 se'if 5 in the Rema. b. The shitah of those who forbid - the Ta"z there in s"k. But many disagree with him, as is explained in Nekudas HaKesef and in Pischei Teshuva there s"k 3. ↩
[3] (Halacha 49)
Rules - part two:
c. With these prohibitions, when the Chachomim explained to us the reason for the prohibition - the danger - then to the extent that the reality has changed, the prohibition too is nullified (as we will learn further on with regard to uncovered water). That is to say, the Chachomim established the prohibition from the outset on the basis of the reality that existed in their times. And this is not like halachic prohibitions and decrees, in which the law does not change even though the reality has changed.
d. With these prohibitions we sometimes see that Klal Yisroel, those who fear the word of Hashem, were not particular about a certain prohibition; and the poskim said about this that with something upon which many tread - שומר פתאים ה'' ("Hashem protects the simple"), that is to say, Hashem guards and saves His people from this danger. And in such a reality, where many tread upon it, the thing will be permitted for everyone.
Notes:
1 c. Shulchan Aruch YD siman 116 se'if 5 in the Rema. d. Likkutei Sichos vol. 23, sichah for Chag HaShavuos 3, se'if 2. c. Shulchan Menachem vol. 4 p. 23 and p. 26. ↩
[4] (Halacha 50)
Drinking the foam on top of liquids
Question: Is it permitted to drink the foam that is on top of beer and the like?
Answer: a. It is stated in the Gemara in Maseches Chullin that one does not drink the foam that is on top of liquids on account of danger; and not only is it forbidden to drink it, but also not to blow on it with the mouth, and not to push the foam aside with the hand.
b. And so the Alter Rebbe wrote (in Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh halacha 9): 'And one who drinks the froth that rises on top of a drink - it is bad, causing rheum that comes from the nose; and one who blows it away with his mouth - it is bad for the head; and one who pushes it to the sides - it is bad, causing poverty'.
c. The Shelah HaKadosh wrote that there are those who hold that the entire problem is only with the fermentation that is in a barrel and the like, and not with fermentation that results from pouring the drink into a vessel; but he concluded that it is proper to be careful in this too, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition.
d. And accordingly there are poskim who are lenient with regard to the foam that is on beer and the like, since this is a result of pouring the drink into a vessel; and there are poskim who are stringent, that one must be careful in this too, as the Shelah wrote, that danger is more stringent than a prohibition.
e. And in practice it is proper to be stringent in this, particularly since the Alter Rebbe did not distinguish in his words and wrote plainly that it is forbidden.
Therefore one must wait until the foam goes down; but there is an expedient - to throw something into the drink, and in that way the foam goes down.
f. On Shabbos it is permitted to tilt the cup so that the foam spills out, and there is in this no prohibition of borer.
Notes:
1 Sefer Shemiras Guf VaNefesh siman 41. V'HaShtiyah KaDas p. 35. Shabbos KaHalacha vol. 2 ch. 12 din 11 and note 18. ↩
[5] (Halacha 51)
Wearing shoes on damp feet
Question: Is it permitted to wear shoes on wet feet?
Answer: a. In the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim (111b) Rav Yosef said that one who puts on his shoes while his feet are still damp from the water of washing - this causes blindness. And so the Alter Rebbe ruled (in Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 9): 'And likewise one who puts on his shoes while his feet are still damp from the water of washing (in their days, when they would put them on over bare feet, and likewise with our socks)'.
b. However, in practice (in the sichah of the first day of Rosh Chodesh Mar Cheshvan 5743) the Rebbe testifies that he saw rabbonim, chassidim, temimim and mashpi'im who are not particular to dry their feet properly, and that the Rebbe himself is not particular about this; consequently the principle of שומר פתאים ה' ("Hashem protects the simple") applies to it, and everyone may conduct himself this way l'chatchilah.
c. It is written in the sefer Pri Etz Chaim in the name of the Arizal that he would not dry himself after immersing in the mikveh on erev Shabbos, and he said that the waters of Shabbos (of the mikveh) ought to be absorbed into our body.
d. The Rebbe discusses how to reconcile the conduct of the Arizal with the words of the aforementioned Gemara, and explains two explanations: 1. The Arizal was speaking of the entire body except for the feet, which one does indeed need to dry. 2. Or that he did not dry the feet, since the virtue of the waters of the mikveh from erev Shabbos is so great that it is worth incurring the risk for it, and moreover it is stated, שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע ("one who keeps a mitzvah will know no evil thing").
e. And in practice, here too the Rebbe testifies that in actual fact one does dry oneself after immersing, for reasons of derech eretz; and one who wishes to gain the segulah of the Arizal as well can leave a small part of the body that is not dried [the Ben Ish Chai (year 2, Parshas Lech Lecha, os 17) wrote that he should leave the arms]. And from that part the kedushah will spread to the entire body.
[6] (Halacha 52)
The law of uncovered liquids [1]
Question: Is it necessary in our times to be particular about the prohibition of drinking uncovered liquids?
Answer: a. It is stated in the Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zarah (daf 30) that there is a prohibition to drink liquids [water (whose taste has not changed), wine (not mevushal), milk, honey, crushed garlic] that were left uncovered, since there is a concern that perhaps a snake drank from these liquids and cast its venom into them, and afterwards, when a person drinks from this, he will be endangered; and it suffices that they remained uncovered for a short time - a moment, without a person being awake beside them, in order to forbid them.
b. However, in Shulchan Aruch (YD siman 116 se'if 1, and so too the Rema wrote in YD siman 60 se'if 3) it is ruled, 'And nowadays, since snakes are not common among us, it is permitted'. And so the Alter Rebbe wrote (OC siman 272 se'if 1), that we are not careful regarding uncovering.
c. There are those who wrote that in places where snakes are common the law reverts, and one must be concerned for uncovered water. And there are those who wrote that accordingly one must be stringent also in Eretz Yisroel, but in practice also in Eretz Yisroel they are not particular about this.
d. However, all this is from the letter of the law, but the Pischei Teshuva brought the Shelah HaKadosh, who wrote that although from the letter of the law we are not concerned, nevertheless 'in any case one who guards his soul will keep far from them, and he shall be called holy'. (And the Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos vol. 23 p. 35 in note 32 mentions this).
e. Therefore in practice, from the letter of the law, one need not be concerned for the law of uncovered water. [However, one who is stringent has grounds for his stringency].
[7] (Halacha 53)
The law of uncovered liquids [2]
Question: Is it permitted to bathe or to perform netilas yodayim with uncovered water?
Answer: a. It is stated in the Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zarah (30b) that water which was left uncovered - one may not wash his face, his hands or his feet with it; and the Tur (in OC siman 160) brought in the name of the Rambam (Hilchos Brochos perek 6 halacha 7) that it is forbidden to perform netilas yodayim with such water. But the Tur concluded that nowadays, since we are not concerned about uncovering, they are consequently fit also for netilah.
b. The poskim wrote (the Bach) that even those who are stringent regarding the drinking of uncovered liquids, with regard to washing and netilah all agree that one need not be stringent. And there is one who wrote (Pri To'ar s"k 2) that in this it is permitted even in a place where snakes are common. However, there are poskim (Kaf HaChaim in siman 160 os 2) who were indeed stringent in this regarding netilas yodayim.
c. And in practice, since the Alter Rebbe did not mention at all the concern of not performing netilas yodayim with uncovered water, one need not be concerned for this; and so too the mashbak of the Rebbe's house testified (Maaseh Melech perek 19 os 6) that this is not a concern at all.
d. Nevertheless, there are those who have the practice (based on Kabbalah) to cover the natla that is prepared for netilas yodayim of the morning, and so it is related (Migdal Oz p. 204) concerning the Tzemach Tzedek.
[8] (Halacha 54)
The law of uncovered wine for Kiddush [3]
Question: May uncovered wine be used for Kiddush?
Answer: a. The Alter Rebbe wrote (OC siman 272 se'if 1), 'And likewise one does not make Kiddush over wine that was left uncovered, even though nowadays we are not careful regarding uncovering, since snakes are not common among us - even so, הקריבהו נא לפחתך וגו' ("Offer it now to your governor, etc."). And in any case, if it stood uncovered only a brief while, one need not be so particular, especially in these lands where wine is not so common, since even the officers and the nobles are not particular about this after the fact, unless its smell and its taste have turned'.
b. And if so, with regard to Kiddush we are stringent, not on account of a concern for the venom of snakes, but on account of the detraction from the importance of the wine when it stood open, for this is not how important people conduct themselves; and in the language of the pasuk in the Navi Malachi: הקריבהו נא לפחתך [= to the officer or the ruler], הירצך או הישא פניך? ("Offer it now to your governor, will he be pleased with you or show you favour?"). And something that one cannot bring to an important flesh-and-blood person - all the more so should it not be used for a mitzvah in honour of Hashem.
c. In the language of the Alter Rebbe one sees that l'chatchilah it is proper to be particular that it should not be uncovered even for a short time, and therefore he wrote that if it stood uncovered a short time one need not be so particular, implying that there is still room to be particular about this (Kitzur Halachos note 4).
However, in a case where it stood longer - and the time called a brief while has passed - then one must be particular from the letter of the law.
d. How much time is considered a brief while? L'chatchilah one should be particular not to make Kiddush over wine that has been open for more than 20 minutes (Shu"t Divrei Malkiel vol. 4 siman 1 regarding a brief while).
However, b'shaas hadchak, when he has no wine, he may rely on the opinion of Harav C. Naeh, who wrote (Badei HaShulchan siman 46 s"k 2) that up to 4 hours there is no problem; and he proved this from the night of the Seder, where the wine is poured into the second cup and one waits with it until the end of the recitation of the Haggadah.
e. And to note that in the name of the Baal Shem Tov it is brought that immediately after pouring the wine into the bottle one should close the bottle and not leave it open, and such was the conduct of the Rebbe (Kovetz Halichos U'Minhagei Shabbos Kodesh p. 43).
[9] (Halacha 55)
The law of uncovered wine for Kiddush [4]
Question: Is there a remedy for wine that was left uncovered?
Answer: The Acharonim wrote that such wine may be nullified; there are those who required bittul in 60 (Shu"t Sho'el V'Nish'al vol. 5 OC siman 35), but in practice, in a case of loss, one may suffice with bittul in a majority (Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 6 siman 111 os 2).
Question: A person who has no other wine, what should he do?
Answer: At night he should make Kiddush over the pas, and by day over chamar medinah (Shu"t Sho'el V'Nish'al vol. 5 OC siman 36).
Question: One who made Kiddush over uncovered wine - has he fulfilled his obligation?
Answer: There are those who hold that he must repeat Kiddush (Birkei Yosef os 1), but in practice he should not repeat Kiddush (Kaf HaChaim os 10. Shu"t Sho'el V'Nish'al vol. 5 OC siman 36. Shu"t Yabia Omer vol. 9 OC siman 84 os 4 - but he added that with regard to the Kiddush of the day, which is only borei pri hagofen, he should repeat and make Kiddush).
Question: Open wine that stood in a closed place, such as a cupboard or a refrigerator - is there a concern in this?
Answer: Although there are Acharonim who wrote to permit in such a situation (Kaf HaChaim there os 9), in practice, since the concern here is not the casting of a snake's venom but rather the very fact that the wine is open, therefore also in a cupboard or a refrigerator one must be careful and not leave it open.
[10] (Halacha 56)
The law of liquids that stayed overnight in metal vessels [1]
Question: Is it permitted to drink liquids over which a night has passed in a metal vessel?
Answer: a. It is stated in the Gemara in Maseches Niddah (17a), 'Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said: There are five things such that one who does them is liable for his life and his blood is upon his own head .. and one who drinks diluted liquids over which the night has passed .. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: and that is when they stayed overnight in metal vessels, and metal vessels are considered like klei neter'.
b. And so the Alter Rebbe wrote in Hilchos Shmiras Guf VaNefesh (se'if 7): 'And likewise one should not drink diluted liquids over which the night has passed after they were diluted with water, and that is when they stayed overnight in metal vessels or klei neter (and it goes without saying, the water itself over which the night has passed in metal vessels)'.
c. And if so, it is forbidden to drink a beverage that was diluted with water, such as juice or tea/coffee, if it is in a metal jug over which the night has passed.
d. And accordingly there are those who discussed whether it is permitted to drink a beverage from cans, for this is a beverage in a metal vessel; and there are those who testified concerning the Rav HaGaon Yehuda Kalman Marlow z"l that he was particular not to drink from cans. However, there are those who wrote (Mamleches Kohanim p. 171) to explain the minhag that we are not concerned about drinking from cans, that with a can there is no concern, since before it is opened it is not in the category of a vessel; and as the Rebbe wrote in a letter (Igros Kodesh vol. 2 p. 143), that the entire prohibition is specifically in a vessel, and therefore there is no problem with an urn that is attached to the wall, since it is nullified from the law of a vessel.
[11] (Halacha 57)
The law of liquids that stayed overnight in metal vessels [2]
Question: Is it permitted to drink water over which a night has passed in a metal vessel?
Answer: a. With regard to the previous law of the prohibition of a diluted beverage staying overnight in a metal vessel, the Alter Rebbe added a great chiddush which is not brought in the poskim before him, and wrote that if a beverage that was diluted with water is forbidden, then all the more so the water itself, if it was in a metal vessel during the night, is forbidden to drink.
b. In Igros Kodesh (vol. 2 p. 143 onwards) the Rebbe was asked by the Rav HaGaon R' M. A. L. Shapiro z"l, Rosh Yeshiva of Toras Emes in Yerushalayim, that in practice in Yerushalayim the water is stored in metal barrels, and what are they to do? And the Rebbe answered on this: a. The Alter Rebbe wrote his chiddush in parentheses, and there is a great principle (She'eris Yehuda OC siman 6 p. 122) that parentheses mean that this was not conclusive for the Alter Rebbe, and that he intended to examine it again and to see whether it is correct in practice. b. One can say that with barrels that are attached to the ground the designation of a vessel is nullified from them with regard to this prohibition. c. In general there is no need to reconcile the minhag, for the rule applies to it that anything upon which many tread (that is, that many in actual fact conduct themselves so) - 'שומר פתאים ה'' ("Hashem protects the simple"). And moreover, one can say that since this is a matter of a danger of a segulah nature, the matter is entirely nullified and there is no longer any concern in it for anyone.
c. However, the Chabad rabbonim differed as to how to conduct oneself in practice; there are those who instructed to be stringent, since the Rebbe in the letter writes in his opening that he did not hear on the subject from his father-in-law, the Rebbe Rayatz; but afterwards a letter was publicized in which the Rebbe Rayatz writes, 'One who fears the word of Hashem should be careful in this, and with Hashem's help I am careful in this'; and so too it is brought that the Rebbe Mahara"sh was particular in this, and even on Shabbos. And one can say that the Rebbe's letter is not a general directive but only to reconcile the minhag of the people of Yerushalayim.
d. But many instructed to be lenient, for ultimately the reasoning that the Rebbe writes fits the reality that everyone conducts themselves so, and consequently 'שומר פתאים ה'', and the danger has even been nullified entirely; and there are those who claim (Pnimah p. 16, Maaseh Melech p. 134 note 51) that in Beis HaRav too, water that stayed overnight in metal vessels was used on Shabbos.
e. And in practice: the primary view is like those who are lenient, and as the Rebbe explained at length in the letter. However, one who wishes to be stringent in the matter has grounds for his stringency.
[12] (Halacha 58)
Additional dangers in drinking water
Question: Is it permitted to drink water during the day directly from rivers or lakes?
Answer: a. The Chachomim said in Maseches Avodah Zarah (12b), 'Our Rabbis taught: a person should not drink water, not from the rivers and not from the lakes, not with his mouth and not with one hand; and if he drank, his blood is upon his own head, because of the danger. What danger? The danger of a leech! .. Our Rabbis taught: a person should not drink water at night, and if he drank, his blood is upon his own head. Because of the danger. What danger? The danger of shavrirei'.
b. And so the Alter Rebbe ruled (Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh halacha 4) with regard to drinking: Drinking during the day: 'He should not place his mouth upon a spout that pours out water and drink, lest he swallow a thread of water - which is a leech. And likewise he should not drink from the rivers and the lakes with his mouth, for this reason, and not with one hand, because he hurries and throws it into his mouth and does not examine it; but with two hands he can hold them back and inspect them.
c. That is to say, drinking during the day is conditional upon the person being able to look well and at ease at the water before he drinks it from the river or the lake.
d. In our times, when we drink in our homes from the water in the tap, which comes from water reservoirs, there is no concern, since the water is filtered before we drink it.
e. [And also according to the Kabbalah of the Arizal, the moment the water reaches the house there is already no problem].
[13] (Halacha 59)
Question: Is there at night an additional stringency in drinking water?
Answer: a. Drinking at night is more stringent, and there is in it a further concern, and so the Alter Rebbe writes (Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 4): 'And at night it is forbidden in every manner, and even by way of straining through a vessel he should not drink at night from the rivers and the lakes, because of the danger of shavrirei - which is a plague of blindness.
b. It appears from the wording of the Alter Rebbe that this entire law applies only when one draws the water at night from the river or the lake; but if he drew it during the day there is no concern, apart from the general concern that perhaps there is something in the water, for which straining the water is effective.
c. And if so, in practice, a person who finds himself at night beside a river or a lake and is very thirsty must a. strain the water b. it is brought in the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim that he should say to his fellow 'צחינא מיא', and by this he will be saved [it is brought in the sefarim (Shemiras Guf VaNefesh siman 48 note 3) to do so even according to the shitah of the Alter Rebbe, although he did not write this incantation that is in the Gemara].
[14] (Halacha 60)
Question: Is there a stringency in drinking water on Shabbos night or on Wednesday night?
Answer: a. A further law the Alter Rebbe wrote in parentheses [that is to say, the Alter Rebbe was in doubt regarding this entire law]: (On Shabbos night and on the night of the fourth day of the week he should not drink water in the dark, even though it was drawn while it was still day and was strained in a vessel, because of the danger of a ruach ra'ah. And if he is very thirsty, he should cast into it some object and afterwards drink).
b. And if so, there is a stringency on Shabbos night or on Wednesday night for a person who drinks water in the dark, even if the water was already drawn during the day and it is strained, that he should not drink this; and the solution is to put something additional into the water, and then there is no concern.
[15] (Halacha 61)
Question: Is there an inyan to pour out a little water before drinking?
Answer: a. It is brought in the Gemara in Maseches Chullin (105b) that Mar said to Abaye that the reason that when one drinks water from the pitcher one pours a little water onto the ground is on account of the evil waters. And so the Alter Rebbe wrote (in Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 4): 'Even during the day one must pour out a little of the water before he drinks, since there are evil waters from which the sheidim drank in the river, and this is their cure.
b. There are those who say that the person who is drinking must pour it out himself, and not that someone else should pour it out on his behalf (Darkei Teshuvah s"k 72, in the name of the Tosafos in Chullin there, d"h חזנהו).
c. This pouring must be done before the bracha and not after he makes the bracha, because of disgrace to the bracha (Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe OC siman 206 se'if 15). If he transgressed and made the bracha before he poured out, he should drink without pouring out, for 'שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע' ("one who guards a mitzvah will know no evil thing") (Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe im Biurim os 69).
d. It is permitted to pour out this water even on Shabbos, and there is in this no concern of borer (Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok vol. 7 siman 16 os 2).
[16] (Halacha 62)
Question: Is it permitted to drink lukewarm water from a metal vessel?
Answer: a. In the Gemara in Maseches Bava Metzia (29b) it is stated: 'R' Yochanan said, a cup of sorcery and not a cup of lukewarm water (that is to say, it is preferable to drink a cup of sorcerers and not one of lukewarm water), and we said this only in a metal vessel, but in an earthenware vessel we have no concern with it; and in a metal vessel too we said this only where it did not hiss (that the water did not boil), but where it hissed (but with boiled water) we have no concern with it (there is no problem). And we said this only where he did not cast into it tziviya (that is to say, even with lukewarm water the prohibition applies only if he did not cast into the water tziviya - that is, herbs or spices or roots of spices) but where he cast into it tziviya we have no concern with it'.
b. And so the Alter Rebbe writes (Hilchos Shemiras HaGuf V'HaNefesh se'if 4): 'He should not drink lukewarm water in a metal vessel, because they are harmful to the body, unless he cast into it some substance that it is customary to put into beverages, such as herbs or spices or roots of spices and the like; and if (they boiled it) (they are boiling) it is permitted in every manner, and in an earthenware vessel it is permitted in every manner'.
c. The Alter Rebbe wrote two versions with regard to the heter of boiling, and this is because of two explanations of Rashi: according to one understanding it suffices that the water was boiled once and it is already permitted, even if it returned to being lukewarm. And according to the second understanding the heter applies as long as it is boiling, but the moment it returned to being lukewarm the prohibition returned; and therefore it is fitting to be stringent and not to drink lukewarm water in a metal vessel as long as it is lukewarm, even though it was boiling beforehand.
[17] (Halacha 63)
Question: Is it permitted to drink water that drips from a barrel?
Answer: a. The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim (111b) says: 'These three things give a pledge to the light of the eyes (three things cause blindness) .. one who drinks tif tif (wine that drips from the barrel)'.
b. And so the Alter Rebbe wrote (Hilchos Shemiras HaGuf V'HaNefesh se'if 9): '..gives blindness to the light of his eyes, and likewise one who drinks a beverage that drips from the barrel'.
Question: Is it permitted to drink out of a bowl?
Answer: a. The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim (daf 111b) says: 'One who drinks water b'tzai (in a bowl) is harmful l'varkusi (for a wasting away of the eyes).
b. And so the Alter Rebbe wrote (Hilchos Shemiras HaGuf V'HaNefesh se'if 9): 'And one who drinks water in a bowl, it is harmful for a wasting away of the eyes'.
c. And therefore one must drink from a cup and not from a bowl.
[18] (Halacha 64)
Pouring out water in the neighborhood of a meis [1]
Question: In which cases must the water be poured out when there is, ר"ל, a meis in the neighborhood?
Answer: a. The Mechaber wrote in Shulchan Aruch YD siman 339 se'if 5, 'It is the minhag to pour out all drawn water that is in the neighborhood of the meis'. And the Alter Rebbe brought this minhag in his Shulchan Aruch.
b. Several reasons for this minhag are brought in the poskim: 1. The Angel of Death casts into the water a drop of the blood of death (Taz there s"k 4, from the Tashbetz siman 442). 2. When they are told to pour out the water, everyone will know that a death has occurred and they will not have to say it out loud (Shach s"k 9). 3. When Miriam the Prophetess died the well of water ceased, and in this way we intimate that the deceased was important and worthy that water be poured out on his account (Tashbetz there). 4. So that the kohanim be careful of tumas meis (Abudarham, end of Hilchos Brochos).
c. In practice this stringency applies only in a case where a person passed away in his home and not in a hospital, and on a weekday and not on Shabbos, and specifically to water (cold or hot) as it is, but not where any change was made in the water, such as that it was put into a cooked dish or that something was added to the water (such as soda); and likewise water that was closed with a metal cover is permitted, as is water in the water reservoirs (גשה"ח chapter 3).
d. One does not wash or cook with this water, and if one did cook with it there are those who forbid the dish even after the fact (Sefer Shemiras Guf VaNefesh siman 186 se'ifim 13 - 14).
[19] (Halacha 65)
Pouring out water in the neighborhood of a meis [2]
Question: Who has to pour out?
d. Answer: The neighborhood of the meis, meaning 3 adjoining houses with no path between them, as follows: when the house of the deceased is at the edge of the neighborhood, they will have to pour out in the 2 houses adjacent to it. And if it is a house among houses, one house on each side of the house of the deceased suffices, and some say that on each side two houses are required.
And in a building of several floors, according to the first view the 2 additional homes on the floor of the deceased suffice (and if the deceased lived on the bottom floor, the 2 homes on the floors above him should pour out, and if he lived on the top floor, the 2 homes on the floors below him). And according to the second view, in every case two homes on the floors above him and two homes on the floors below him are required as well (גשה"ח there).
e. The Alter Rebbe wrote (OC siman 206 se'if 14) that in a case where one already recited a bracha over the water and then heard that there is a meis in the neighborhood .. he should drink a little water so that his bracha should not be in vain, and pour out the rest.
And even according to those who say that one who drinks from it places himself in danger, nevertheless here, where he is drinking so that there should not be a bracha in vain, the principle of 'שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע' ("one who keeps a mitzvah will know no evil") applies to it. But after he has drunk a little, and his bracha is no longer in vain, he should pour out the rest of the water on account of the concern of danger.
f. And so he wrote (OC siman 455 se'if 15) regarding one who prepared water that had stayed overnight for the baking of matzos and it became known that there is a meis in the neighborhood, that he need not pour out the water, since 'ששומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע'. However, he has the right to be stringent and pour it out if he has the possibility of easily obtaining other water; but if it concerns water designated for mitzvah matzos, he may not be stringent and pour it out, since if he is stringent he appears as one who disparages the pasuk of שומר מצוה.
[20] (Halacha 107)
Drinking water at the hour of the tekufah [1]
Question: Is it permitted to drink water at the hour of the tekufah?
Answer: a. The Rema wrote1: 'And it is a widespread minhag not to drink water at the hour of the tekufah, and so the Kadmonim wrote, and it is not to be changed'. That is to say, the year is divided into four parts - tekufos: Nissan, Tammuz, Tishrei, Teves; each tekufah lasts 91 days and 7.5 hours, and the time at which the changeover of the tekufah occurs is a time at which it is forbidden to drink water on account of danger2.
b. The Alter Rebbe did not mention this halacha in Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh, but it is brought in two other places.
1) In OC siman 206 se'if 14: 'A person who recited a bracha over water, and before he tasted the water it became known to him that the tekufah is falling at that moment, should wait a little until this time passes and then drink [and he does not recite the bracha again], since there are those who say that there is no danger in it other than to drink at the hour of the tekufah itself, but as soon as this time passes the water reverts to being permitted. And even according to those who say that whenever there was no iron in it at the hour of the tekufah there is a danger in drinking from it afterwards as well, nevertheless 'שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע' ("one who keeps a mitzvah will know no evil").
2) And in siman 455 se'ifim 15 - 17: 'One who has in his home drawn water that he drew for the kneading of the matzah, and the tekufah fell at night or during the day .. even so he need not pour out this water, for it is stated (Koheles 8:5) 'שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע'. And if he wishes to be stringent and pour them out, he has the right to do so, and it is proper to do so if he is able easily to find other water that has stayed overnight .. To what does this apply? To water that he drew for the kneading of matzah that is not of a mitzvah, which is close to an optional matter, for he has the right not to eat matzah all the days of Pesach; therefore he may be stringent upon himself and pour them out. But water that was drawn for the kneading of the matzos of mitzvah - even if he is able to find other water, and he is stringent upon himself and pours them out, he is not doing well, for he appears as one who disparages the statement of the verse שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע. And nevertheless, l'chatchilah, before the tekufah falls he should not rely on this, and he should place iron into it'. (And something like a needle suffices).
c. From the words of the Alter Rebbe we learn several principles with regard to this danger: 1) In a case where this danger clashes with a mitzvah, the mitzvah prevails, since שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע, and therefore he may not be stringent and pour out the water. 2) There are 2 views regarding the prohibition itself: one view maintains that the entire prohibition is only at the moment of the tekufah, and the second view disagrees and holds that water that is present at the hour of the tekufah becomes forbidden entirely. 3) And the solution is to place iron in the water in advance, even a small and thin piece like a needle, and thereby the prohibition is nullified.
d. It appears that the approach of Rabboseinu Nesi'einu is that one must be concerned for this danger, as in the Hayom Yom calendar that the Rebbe printed in the year 5703 the times of the tekufah for that year are brought at the beginning (a photograph is attached).
[And as for the letter from the month of Teves of the year 57393 in which the Rebbe reconciles the minhag with regard to not making Kiddush in the seventh hour, yet we do not go according to the precise hour based on the true chatzos, and these are his holy words: 'And in this matter in particular there is also the point that nowadays, since many tread upon it, 'שומר פתאים ה'' ("Hashem protects the simple") (for so it is also with regard to a talmid chochom ..) [and similarly it is also with regard to the hour of the tekufah and the pouring out of water]'. And simply, the Rebbe's intent in the comparison between these cases is with regard to the time - the precise hour of the stringency, and not with regard to the stringency itself. And this is easily understood].
e. However, in practice, since in actual fact we see that the Jews who are scrupulous regarding the word of Hashem are not particular about this danger, the principle stated in the letter, 'שומר פתאים ה'', applies to it, and the danger has been nullified.
Notes:
1 In YD siman 116 se'if 5 ↩
2 The reason for this is explained in the Abudarham, Sha'ar HaTekufos - brought in Darkei Moshe, and Taz s"k 3 ↩
3 Printed in Likutei Sichos vol. 16 p. 576 ↩
[21] (Halacha 108)
Foods and liquids under the bed [1]
Question: Is it permitted to eat items of food and drink that were under the bed?
Answer: a. The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'It was taught: Foods and liquids under the bed - even if they are covered over with an iron vessel, a ruach ra'ah rests upon them'. And so the Alter Rebbe ruled2: 'One should not place a cooked dish or other foods and liquids under the bed, because a ruach ra'ah rests upon them, even if they are covered over with an iron vessel'.
b. From the words of the Alter Rebbe it is understood: 1) That the prohibition applies not only to cooked food but also to raw foods, and this is why he wrote 'a cooked dish or other foods' (and not like the poskim who permitted raw food3). 2) Specifically under the bed and not other things, and accordingly one may be lenient in cases where a person fell asleep on top of the food but the food was not lying under the bed - such as where it was lying on the bed itself upon which he slept, or where he fell asleep with food in his pocket and the like; or where it was under a chair or a table and the person fell asleep there. And so it is brought in the name of the Rebbe Rashab4, who said in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek 'that this applies specifically if it was in exactly the same manner [that Chazal stated] - for example, in the matter of foods under the bed, that means specifically under the bed, but if it simply happened that he slept on the foods there is no need to be concerned for this'. 3) The item is forbidden even if it was wrapped or covered.
c. The poskim further discussed5 what the halacha is after the fact, where one has already transgressed and placed food under the bed - whether the food is permitted to be eaten or whether it is forbidden even after the fact; and from the letter of the Rebbe Rashab6 we see that he held that it is forbidden even after the fact, and so it is accepted in practice among Chabad chassidim to forbid it7. However, in a case of a substantial loss one should ask a rav whether in such a situation one may rely on those who are lenient.
Therefore, in practice, any food or drink - even wrapped or covered - that was lying under the bed, whatever the reason, is forbidden to be eaten; and where there is a substantial loss one should ask a rav.
Notes:
1 112a ↩
2 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 7 ↩
3 See Darkei Teshuvah siman 116 s"k 36 ↩
4 Kerem Chabad, issue 1, p. 86, and in Mamleches Kohanim p. 185 ↩
5 Shemiras Guf VaNefesh siman 14 se'if 5 ↩
6 Igros Kodesh vol. 1 p. 317 - Toras Shalom siman 13 ↩
7 Sefer Shulchan HaZahav p. 111 note 113 ↩
[22] (Halacha 109)
Foods and drinks under the bed [2]
d. Question: What is the halacha regarding medicines that were placed under the bed?
Answer: The poskim1 were lenient with regard to medicines, since they are not food, [and it is to be noted that in the letter of the Rebbe Rashab mentioned above the discussion is about tobacco that had been lying under the bed, and the Rebbe Rashab, in his reasoning to permit it, writes that the Sages forbade foods and liquids 'and possibly it does not apply to other things'].
e. Question: What is the halacha regarding food lying in the underside of a baby carriage, and likewise if it was placed under a seat in a car, or under a seat in an airplane?
Answer: It is permitted, since it is not between the bed and the floor, and also since it is not literally a bed, [and as above in the name of the Tzemach Tzedek, that in matters such as these only what was stated explicitly is forbidden]2.
f. Question: What is the halacha regarding a bunk bed?
Answer: The poskim wrote3 that l'chatchilah it is worth being careful not to place anything under the upper bed - on the lower bed - but after the fact it is permitted. And likewise, if he slept on the upper bed and the food is under the lower one, that too would be permitted4.
g. Question: What is the halacha if it was under the bed at night but they did not actually sleep there?
Answer: The poskim are divided5 as to whether the ruach ra'ah rests upon it in a situation where they did not sleep on the bed [and in the letter of the Rebbe Rashab mentioned above he leaves such a situation in doubt], or where it was placed there during the day and not at night; and therefore l'chatchilah one certainly must be careful not to place it there, and after the fact one must ask a rav whether one may be lenient.
h. Question: What is the halacha regarding foods that were lying under the bed of a non-Jew, and what is the halacha in a case where a person placed his fellow's foods there without his knowledge?
Answer: With regard to the bed of a non-Jew as well the poskim are divided6 as to whether it becomes forbidden, and therefore l'chatchilah one must be careful; and if such a case occurred, one should ask a rav whether it can be permitted.
And in a case where a person placed his fellow's foods there without his knowledge, the poskim wrote7 to permit it to be eaten, for a person cannot render forbidden something that is not his.
Notes:
1 They are cited in Piskim U'Teshuvos siman 116 note 124 ↩
2 Shemiras Guf VaNefesh there se'if 10 ↩
3 Shu"t Az Nidberu vol. 6 siman 39 os 2 ↩
4 Kovetz MiBeis Levi, Inyonei YD, p. 94 ↩
5 Shemiras Guf VaNefesh there se'if 7. And see in Piskim U'Teshuvos there notes 127 - 128 ↩
6 Shemiras Guf VaNefesh there se'if 9. Piskim U'Teshuvos there notes 137 - 138 ↩
7 Shu"t Rav Pe'alim vol. 4, in Sod Yesharim, siman 6. Shu"t Salmas Chaim OC end of siman 23 ↩
[23] (Halacha 110)
Danger in a person's sweat
Question: Is there a danger in a person's sweat?
Answer: a. The Alter Rebbe wrote1: 'One should not place a loaf of bread under the armpit because of the sweat, for all of a person's sweat is a deadly poison except for the sweat of the face. A hint of this is בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם ("by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread"). And one should not put coins in his mouth, lest there be a little sweat upon them, and also because everyone's hand handles them and among them are sick people and their filth clings to them and it harms a person when he puts them into his mouth'.
b. Accordingly the poskim warned2 not to touch with the tongue the flesh of another person other than the face, lest there be sweat there. And likewise, for the same reason, not to place any food between the clothing and the body.
And there are those who distinguished3 that hot bread, which causes heavy sweating, is forbidden to be held against the body even when the garment separates, since the sweat passes through; but cold bread may be held against the body when the garment separates, unless it is a garment in which sweat is absorbed.
c. An interesting question was brought by the Darkei Teshuvah4 concerning a person whose tefillin shel rosh fell into a cooking pot - whether there is cause for concern on account of a person's sweat that is absorbed in the tefillin, this not being the sweat of the face, in which there is no danger, but rather the sweat of the rest of the head, in which there is danger, since the tefillin have to be placed above the forehead; however, in practice he ruled5 that even if something did enter into the dish, it is nullified in sixty.
Notes:
1 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 8 - from the Yerushalmi, Maseches Terumos ch. 8 halacha 3, and so the Mechaber ruled in YD siman 116 se'if 4 and se'if 5 ↩
2 Ben Ish Chai, year 2, Parshas Pinchas, os 15 ↩
3 Pri To'ar s"k 5, brought in Darkei Teshuvah s"k 34 and Kaf HaChaim s"k 39 ↩
4 Shu"t Yad Meir siman 20 ↩
[24] (Halacha 111)
Peeled garlic, onion and egg over which the night has passed [1]
Question: Is it forbidden to eat peeled garlic or onion or egg over which a night has passed?
Answer: a. The Gemara in Maseches Niddah1 says: 'Rashbi said: there are five things such that one who does them is liable for his life and his blood is upon his own head2 — one who eats peeled garlic and a peeled onion and a peeled egg .. over which the night has passed; and even though they are lying in a basket, and bound up and sealed, a ruach ra'ah rests upon them. And we said this only where he did not leave upon them their root or their peel, but where he left upon them their root or their peel, we have no concern with it'.
b. And so the Alter Rebbe ruled3: 'And he should not eat peeled garlic or a peeled onion or a peeled egg over which the night has passed, because a ruach ra'ah rests upon them, even if they are wrapped in a cloth and sealed; and if he left upon them their root — which is the hair at the head of the garlic and the onion — or a little of their peel, they are permitted'.
c. It emerges from the words of the Alter Rebbe: 1) that this danger applies even in a case where they were closed or wrapped, or in a refrigerator or a freezer. 2. However, if a little of the peel remained upon them, or one left in the garlic or the onion a little of their hairs at the bottom, it will be permitted.
Question: Are these foods forbidden even bedieved, and what is the halacha where there is a great loss?
Answer: the wording of the Alter Rebbe here, he should not eat, is clear that the prohibition applies even bedieved — that where one has already left them so, they are forbidden to be eaten, (and so the poskim inferred from the wording of the Gemara itself4). And the poskim wrote5 that since this is on account of danger, it is forbidden even where there is a great loss, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition. And moreover6, with regard to some of the prohibitions of danger we saw that nullification in a majority or in sixty is effective; here, however, since this is a spiritual danger, even nullification is not effective.
Question: What is the halacha if these things were peeled in the middle of the night?
Answer: there are poskim who wrote7 that this prohibition applies only in a case where the entire night passed, literally — that is, that they were peeled from before tzeis hakochovim until after alos hashachar — and accordingly, in the case of the question it is possible to permit. However there are poskim who wrote8 that even if only the end of the night passed over them they became forbidden, and when the need arises one should ask a rov.
Question: Does the prohibition apply to a cooked egg or to one that is not cooked?
Answer: the poskim disagree9 as to which egg Chazal were speaking of, for seemingly from the wording of the Gemara, a peeled egg, and likewise he left over of their peel, it appears that the discussion is about a cooked egg; and there are those who testified10 that it is a daily occurrence that so they were accustomed with an egg that is not cooked, that they were not concerned and left it overnight. And on the other hand there are those who wrote that on the contrary, the entire concern is only with an egg that is not cooked, and not with a cooked one, and that so the world is accustomed.
And in practice one must be stringent in both of them, both with a cooked one and with one that is not cooked11, and particularly since from the unqualified wording of many poskim it appears that they held that there is no distinction between a cooked one and one that is not cooked, and it is always forbidden.
Notes:
1 17a ↩
2 And to note from Shu"t Divrei Yatziv YD siman 31 os 4, which writes alarming things regarding care in this matter ↩
3 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh halacha 7 ↩
4 Birkei Yosef YD siman 116, in Shiyurei Bracha os 10. Shu"t Beis Shlomo vol. 1 YD siman 189 ↩
5 Shu"t Divrei Yatziv YD ibid. os 7 ↩
6 In Divrei Yatziv ibid. os 10 ↩
7 Shu"t Divrei Yatziv YD ibid. os 13; brought by the Imrei Yaakov on the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, os 33 ↩
8 Shu"t Shevet HaKehosi vol. 2 siman 247 ↩
9 See Darkei Teshuvah YD siman 116 s"k 74 ↩
10 Mamleches Kohanim, Shaar Yitzchok siman 10 ↩
11 Mamleches Kohanim, Shaar Beirurei Halacha p. 171 os 6 ↩
[25] (Halacha 112)
Peeled garlic, onion and egg over which the night has passed [2]
Question: Will it help, in advance, to add something to them in order to permit them for eating?
Answer: In the sefer Semak1 it is brought that people are not concerned about eating crushed garlic, since bread is mixed into it; and on the basis of this the poskim wrote2 that when something else is mixed into the garlic, onion or egg, it is permitted; and accordingly they permitted salads that have cut onion in them, egg salad on Shabbos, and more. And to note that although the Alter Rebbe did not mention this heter of the Semak, and therefore there are among the rabbonim of Chabad who somewhat questioned whether to rely upon this, in practice the minhag has spread to rely upon this heter.
Question: How much must the addition be in order to permit this?
Answer: The poskim wrote that an egg into which one put salt — and the taste of the salt is discernible, since then it is possible to define it as a salted egg — is permitted. And within this itself there are those who wished to be lenient from an amount of 2 percent of salt or sugar relative to the food, but they wrote that it is difficult to rely upon this3, and in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchok4 an addition in an amount of 10 percent salt or sugar is mentioned. In any event, in practice the addition must be significant and noticeable.
Question: Will it help to mix onion into egg in order to permit it?
Answer: Although there is one who permitted such a thing5, the essential ruling in halacha6 is that only another food is effective; but onion in egg — since this ruach ra'ah rests upon both of them, they therefore cannot help one another.
Question: Where the case is egg powder and the like, is there more room to be lenient?
Answer: The poskim7 were lenient with a powder of eggs, and their reasoning is that since it undergoes a process of drying, it becomes a new reality, and it does not bear the name of an egg with regard to the matter of danger.
Notes:
1 siman 171 ↩
2 Shu"t Beis Shlomo YD siman 189; Ben Ish Chai, year 2, Parshas Pinchas os 14. And many more poskim, indicated in Piskim U'Teshuvos siman 116 note 196 ↩
3 Teshuvos VeHanhagos vol. 3 siman 256 ↩
4 vol. 6 siman 75 ↩
5 Shu"t Even Yisroel vol. 8 siman 19 ↩
6 Shu"t Divrei Yatziv ibid. in siman 33 se'if 3 ↩
7 Shu"t Degel Efraim siman 28, brought in Darkei Teshuvah s"k 74 ↩
[26] (Halacha 127)
Question: Is there a problem with eating or drinking while standing?
Answer: a. In this matter we have found two sources that seemingly contradict one another: a) The Gemara in Gittin1 says: 'Three things sap [remove the strength of2] a person's entire body, and these are they: one who ate standing, and drank standing, and had marital relations standing'. b) In Maseches Derech Eretz Zuta3: 'One who is a talmid chochom should not eat [and should not drink] standing'.
From the Gemara in Gittin it is understood that this is a general warning to everyone, but in Maseches Derech Eretz it is written that this is a law for talmidei chachomim.
b. In the sefer Kapos Temarim4 he explains that the Gemara in Gittin is not speaking from the aspect of a prohibition, but rather from the aspect of medicine and the safeguarding of the body, and that this is good advice for everyone (and therefore it is brought — and only in part — in the Rambam5); which is not so with Maseches Derech Eretz, where this is a full law for a talmid chochom.
In practice there are poskim who brought the Gemara in Gittin, and so wrote the Rokeach6: 'Derech eretz at a seudah: a person should not eat standing and should not drink standing'.
c. The Alter Rebbe omitted this law in Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh, even though he brought the other laws that are in the Gemara in Gittin there.
And perhaps it may be said that the reason is on account of the words of the Mahari"l7 in the name of his teachers: 'I asked some of my teachers and they said that they did not see the elder rabbonim doing so, and they distinguished that nowadays they are not careful about drinking [standing]'. And in like manner it is written in Shu"t Rav Pealim8: 'However the Rambam in Hilchos De'os perek 4 did not mention this, and did not write that harm will come to him, neither from eating nor from drinking standing; and it is possible that he holds that in this time the natures have changed from the time of the Sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud, as such is found in other matters, and it is possible that for this reason the world is not careful in this, neither with wine nor with water, because they saw that the Rambam omitted this matter in Hilchos De'os'.
d. But we have found that the law that speaks of talmidei chachomim is mentioned by the Alter Rebbe with regard to drinking the wine of Havdalah9: 'And in any case, after the conclusion of Havdalah he should sit and drink the cup, for talmidei chachomim should not eat or drink standing'. If so, according to his approach, as a matter of law there is an obligation only upon talmidei chachomim.
However, from the wording of the Alter Rebbe with regard to Havdalah, where he wrote a general expression that everyone should conduct themselves so, we see that in this law everyone must conduct themselves like talmidei chachomim10.
And one may say that the intention of the Alter Rebbe11 is that with eating and drinking of a mitzvah everyone must conduct themselves like talmidei chachomim, so as not to conduct oneself with a lack of derech eretz in a matter of a mitzvah.
In summary: a caution is brought in the Gemara in Gittin, and brought by the Rishonim (on account of health or of derech eretz), not to eat and drink while standing; but they did not have the practice to be careful in this, apart from talmidei chachomim. However, with eating and drinking of a mitzvah, such as Kiddush and Havdalah, everyone must eat and drink seated.
Notes:
1 70a ↩
2 Hagahos Yaavetz, based on Yeshayahu 18:5 ↩
3 perek 5. Brought in the Mahari"l (siman 8) ↩
4 by the gaon hachossid R' Chaim Shimon Zivavo, siman 4 ↩
5 Hilchos De'os perek 4 halacha 3 ↩
6 Hilchos Seudah siman 329, brought in א"ר siman 170 s"k 23. And in Ketzos HaShulchan siman 39 din 3 ↩
7 In the Shu"t, siman 124 ↩
8 vol. 2 OC siman 45 ↩
9 siman 296 se'if 15 ↩
10 As the Machatzis HaShekel wrote on the Magen Avraham. And see Kitzur Halachos MiShulchan Aruch HaRav note 14. Shulchan Aruch HaRav Im Biurim (Gershovitz) os 95 (but what he cites to the א"ר is puzzling). Leket Tziyunim - MiDarkei Levi note 17 ↩
11 And see what is written in Kovetz Or Yisroel, issue 29, p. 123 onward ↩
[27] (Halacha 128)
Question: Is it permitted to stand up immediately after eating, drinking, sleeping, or bloodletting?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'Five things are nearer to death than to life, and these are they: one who ate and stood up, drank and stood up, slept and stood up, let blood and stood up, had marital relations and stood up'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe2: 'One who ate or drank or slept or had marital relations or let blood — after he has done one of these, he should not stand up immediately, but should wait a little before he stands up'. And so he wrote in OC siman 13: 'One who awakens from his sleep and stands up at once, immediately upon his feet, is nearer to death than to life; rather he should wait a little before he stands up'.
If so, in practice it is forbidden to stand up immediately after these things; rather one should wait a little.
Question: What is the eating concerning which this care was stated?
Answer: Rashi wrote4 that this law applies specifically in a case where he ate to satiety, but if he ate a little, this concern does not exist.
Question: How long is the time that one must wait after eating and drinking?
Answer: It is brought in Minhagei Mahari"l5: 'He said that it is stated in the Gemara that a person should always wait after the seudah before he goes on his way, and the Sages did not give a measure for the waiting; rather this is the measure: whatever kind he ate, he should wait after it the measure of its final bracha — for example, if he ate bread he should wait the measure in which he would be able to recite birchas hamazon; if he ate a kind that requires the bracha of Me'ein Shalosh, he should wait its measure; if he ate a kind that requires Borei Nefashos, he should wait its measure6 — end of his words7.
And in Gilyonei HaShas he noted on this: 'And perhaps this is the reason of the Gemara in Berachos 51b, and the halacha is that in all of them he sits and recites the bracha — for the Sages decreed lest he stand up immediately after his eating, which is nearer to death than to life, and therefore they required birchas hamazon to be recited seated, for then he automatically waits the required measure. And according to this, also with the bracha of Me'ein Shalosh and the bracha of Borei Nefashos one must recite the bracha seated8.
If so, in practice, after the seudah one should not rise from his place immediately; rather he must be careful to remain seated for the measure of time of the appropriate bracha.
Question: How long must one wait after sleeping?
Answer: The Alter Rebbe wrote9: 'And it is good to accustom oneself to say immediately upon awakening from one's sleep (מודה אני לפניך מלך חי וקים, שהחזרת בי נשמתי בחמלה רבה אמונתך), and through this he will remember Hashem who stands over him and will rise with alacrity. But he should not rise and stand up all of a sudden; rather he should wait a little until he finishes this nusach while he is still lying down or sitting, as will be explained in Hilchos Derech Eretz'.
If so, the measure of waiting after sleep before one rises is the time it takes to say the nusach of Modeh Ani.
Notes:
1 129b. And Gittin 70a ↩
2 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 5 ↩
3 Mahadura Kama se'if 6 ↩
4 Shabbos ibid. d"h achal ve'amad. Brought in Kaf HaChaim siman 116 s"k 89 ↩
5 In the Likkutim, p. 627 siman 62. Brought in Yosef Ometz vol. 3, the laws of nichush and simona milsa, os 19 ↩
6 Seemingly one may say that the Mahari"l too agrees with Rashi that the case is that he ate to satiety, and as his wording indicates, that the case is a seudah; and what he wrote, 'he ate a kind that requires Borei Nefashos', means that he ate all he needed and was satisfied from something whose bracha is Borei Nefashos, and the like ↩
7 In Ketzos HaShulchan siman 39, in Badei HaShulchan os 10, he wrote that it requires study why the measure should differ for each thing ↩
8 And to note from the words of the Alter Rebbe in siman 183 se'if 13, that only with Me'ein Shalosh (which is akin to the birchas hamazon of the Torah) is there reason to be concerned for those who are stringent and to sit ↩
9 OC Mahadura Tinyana siman 1, se'if 6 ↩
[28] (Halacha 129)
Question: Why is it forbidden to stick a knife into an esrog or a radish?
Answer: It is written in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Maseches Terumos1: 'R' Ami said: we must be concerned for that which the outsiders are concerned about, etc. — inserting a knife into a radish, a knife into an esrog'.
As to the reason for this law, several explanations were written to explain what the danger in the matter is: a) The Rambam2 wrote that perhaps the person will fall upon its point and die. b) The Ran3 wrote that it is because it is not discernible, and at times a person comes to sit upon it and it enters into him. c) The Raavad, in his glosses on the Rambam there, wrote that there is in this a degradation of the fruit, in that he makes of it a sheath for a knife. d) The Pri Chodosh4 wrote that the danger with the esrog and the radish is that on account of their sharpness they absorb the rust from the knife, and it is dangerous for one who eats the fruit or the vegetable.
The Alter Rebbe brought this law as halacha together with the first two reasons, and these are his words5: 'And he should not stick a knife into a large esrog or into a radish, lest a person fall upon its point and die, or lest he sit upon it'.
The Aruch HaShulchan6 wondered why the commentators specified an esrog and a radish in particular, and not the rest of the fruits and vegetables7?
And indeed it is written in Lechem Yehudah (Ayash) on the Rambam there that according to the approach of the Rambam and according to his reason, this prohibition is not only with fruits and food items, but with anything into which one sticks the knife in a manner in which it is not discernible.
And he further wrote that the prohibition according to this approach is only when he inserts the entire knife into the fruit, in a manner in which the knife is not discernible8, and he will come, chas v'shalom, to danger.
In practice we learn from this halacha the importance of being careful to see to it that one places the knife and other dangerous things in a fitting place, so that they do not come to danger.
Notes:
1 perek 8 halacha 3 ↩
2 Hilchos Rotzeach U'Shemiras Nefesh perek 12 halacha 6 ↩
3 Avodah Zarah 10b in the pages of the Rif ↩
4 siman 116 s"k 7 ↩
5 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 8 ↩
6 In siman 116 se'if 11 ↩
7 And he wrote that the matter is understood according to the reason of the Pri Chodosh, that the prohibition is on account of sharpness ↩
8 And as is likewise precise from the wording of the Ran, 'And likewise it is forbidden — that a person should not sink a knife into an esrog' ↩
[29] (Halacha 130)
Question: Is it permitted to take a large step on weekdays?
Answer: It is brought in Maseches Shabbos1: 'Rebbi asked of R' Yishmoel b'R' Yosi: What is the law regarding taking a large step on Shabbos? He said to him: And on a weekday, was it permitted? For I say: a large step takes away one of five hundred of the light of a person's eyes. And it is restored to him with the kiddusha d'bei shimshei'.
The Alter Rebbe wrote this law in the Shulchan Aruch2: 'And even on a weekday one should not take a large step, because it takes away one of five hundred of the light of a person's eyes'. And so he wrote3: 'It is a mitzvah to run to the beis haknesses, and likewise for every matter of a mitzvah, as it is stated: נרדפה לדעת את ה' וגו' ("Let us pursue the knowledge of Hashem, etc."); and in any case he should run only until the entrance of the beis haknesses .. and even on Shabbos, when it is forbidden to take a large step, and also on a weekday it takes away one of 500 of the light of his eyes — nevertheless he should run for every matter of a mitzvah'.
If so, one should not take a large step even on a weekday, on account of its harming a person's eyesight, unless it is a step for the need of a mitzvah.
Question: What is the measure of a large step?
Answer: The Alter Rebbe wrote4: that this is in a situation where there is more than an amah = 48 cm from the tip of the big toe of one foot to the tip of the big toe of the other foot.
Question: What is the intention of the Gemara that the way to rectify this is: 'and it is restored to him with the kiddusha d'bei shimshei'?
Answer: We find among the commentators several approaches as to the intention of the Gemara: 1) The approach of Rashi (in Shabbos): that it is through drinking the wine of the Kiddush on Shabbos night. 2) The approach of the Meiri in Shabbos there, that the intention is to the rest of Shabbos, which begins at the time of the Kiddush, and not to the Kiddush itself. 3) The approach of the Tur5 in the name of R' Netronai Gaon, that it is by placing some of the wine upon the eyes, or by the one who makes Kiddush tasting it, and this suffices for everyone. 4) The approach of the Mahari"l6, that it is through gazing at the candles at the Kiddush, for two times ner is in gematria ת"ק (500), which is what the large step took away from him.
The Alter Rebbe wrote in accordance with the words of the Mahari"l7: 'And when they begin it is good to place one's eyes upon the candles for two times ner amounts to ת"ק, and it is a remedy for a large step, which takes away one of ת"ק of the light of a person's eyes'.
And likewise the Rebbe, at the time of his visit to the dining room of the Temimim on the first night of Chag HaPesach 5741, asked8 that they place the Yom Tov candle over which the bracha had been recited in a place where everyone would see it at the time of the Kiddush [for the Kiddush of Yom Tov has all the laws of the Kiddush of Shabbos9], since at the time one begins to make Kiddush it is good to place one's eyes upon the candles over which the bracha was recited.
In addition, the Rebbe wrote in Igros Kodesh10: 'And surely it is superfluous to arouse him regarding the words of our Sages of blessed memory, that whoever is careful with the wine of Kiddush and with the wine of Havdalah adds to the light of his eyes'; and with regard to the wine of the Kiddush he cites the Gemara in Shabbos 113b and Rashi there.
We see that the Rebbe also holds like Rashi, that being particular to make Kiddush on wine (and not grape juice or other beverages) is likewise beneficial for eyesight ['And the expounders of hidden meanings have already alluded that yayin is in gematria ayin'].
If so, in practice, in order to rectify the eyesight that is harmed by a large step: a. one must look at the candles at the beginning of the Kiddush. b. one must be particular to make Kiddush on wine.
Notes:
1 113a. And in Berachos 43b. Taanis 10b ↩
2 OC siman 301, in the Mahadura Kama se'if 1 ↩
3 siman 90 se'if 13 ↩
4 siman 301 ibid. And see also in siman 397 se'if 2 ↩
5 In siman 269 ↩
6 Hilchos Shabbos siman 2 ↩
7 siman 271 se'if 19 ↩
8 Likkutei Sichos vol. 22 p. 283 ↩
9 Shulchan Aruch HaRav siman 271 se'if 4 ↩
10 vol. 11 p. 375 ↩
[30] (Halacha 131)
Sleeping alone in a house [1]
Question: Is it permitted to sleep alone in a house?
Answer: It is stated in Maseches Shabbos1: 'R' Chanina said: It is forbidden to sleep in a house alone [at night2], and anyone who sleeps in a house alone is seized by Lilis'.
[And note the Zohar in Parshas Tazria3: 'ויתר יעקב לבדו ("And Yaakov was left alone") — from here we learn that one who is found alone in a house at night, or by day in a house that is set apart — and all the more so at night. What is 'set apart'? Set apart from the other houses. Or one who goes alone at night — he is liable to be harmed. Come and see: ויתר יעקב לבדו, and then ויאבק איש עמו וגו'. - However, the explanations in the Zohar are many, and as to how to reconcile it with the sugya of the Gemara, this is not the place to elaborate].
And so writes the Alter Rebbe4: 'And it is forbidden to sleep in a house alone (at night), and anyone who sleeps in a house alone (at night) is seized by Lilis'.
Question: Does this prohibition apply only to sleeping at night, or also to sleeping during the day?
Answer: a. Seemingly, according to the Rif and the Rosh, whose text of the Gemara read night, one could understand that in their view the entire prohibition is only at night5. And more than that, the Machatzis HaShekel6 wrote that there is no dispute in this, and even according to the text of the Gemara before us, in which 'night' is not written7, nevertheless the intention is specifically to night, because the prohibition to sleep applies specifically to a fixed sleep, which is at night.
b. However, there are those who hold8 that there is a prohibition also for sleeping during the day, and they rely on the Talmud Yerushalmi9: 'R' Levi said: In three places the Satan is found to accuse .. one who walks on the road by himself, and one who sleeps in a dark house by himself ..'. And from the fact that the prohibition is in a dark house, it implies that also during the day, in a dark house that has no light in it.
c. Now we shall clarify the view of the Alter Rebbe on this matter:
In the ruling brought above, the Alter Rebbe wrote the word 'night' in parentheses, and explained in Kuntres Acharon s"k 2: 'The text of the Rosh; and so it appears in the Yerushalmi that the Pri Chodosh brought, that the concern is specifically in a dark house — see there'.
There are those who understood10 that the Alter Rebbe's intention was to bring a proof from the Yerushalmi, which wrote 'a dark house', for the text of the Rosh that the prohibition is only at night [and accordingly they wrote that perhaps the reason the Alter Rebbe wrote the word 'at night' in parentheses is because of the doubt arising from the words of the Zohar there, from which it appears that the prohibition applies also during the day].
But this is entirely not understood, and as was written above, that the language of the Yerushalmi, 'a dark house', seemingly proves that the prohibition is not on account of the night but on account of the darkness, and also when it is 'dark' during the day11.
d. Therefore it appears that the Alter Rebbe's intention is to be explained in the opposite manner: that his intention is that even the Rosh, who wrote 'night', did not mean specifically night, but rather meant darkness! — like the Yerushalmi, which wrote 'a dark house'. Consequently, in the view of the Alter Rebbe the prohibition applies also during the day, as is the plain meaning of the Yerushalmi; and there is support for this (in the understanding of the Rosh, at any rate) from Shu"t Mishneh Halachos12, which wrote: 'And accordingly one may also explain the text of the Rif and the Rosh, that "at night" means like night — that is, that if it were a dark house during the day, they too would agree that it is forbidden to sleep in a house alone; and "at night" means like night'.
If so, in practice, according to the view of the Alter Rebbe one must be careful about sleeping alone in a dark place, even during the day.
Notes:
1 151b ↩
2 So read the Rif 65b, and the Rosh there perek 23 siman 13 ↩
3 Zohar vol. 3 folio 45a ↩
4 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 6 ↩
5 And so wrote the Mishnah Berurah OC siman 239 s"k 9 ↩
6 OC siman 239 s"k 7 ↩
7 And as is brought in the Magen Avraham there s"k 7 ↩
8 See the sefer Yesod Yosef os 9. And see the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch) siman 239. Biruray Halachos siman 24 os 1 ↩
9 Shabbos perek 2 halacha 6 ↩
10 See the sefer Shemiras HaGuf VehaNefesh siman 114 note 1 ↩
11 And the Sdei Chemed in Divrei Chachomim siman 85 has already noted: 'And it is explained that although from the language of the Yerushalmi (one who sleeps in a dark house) it would have been possible to explain that also during the day, if he is in a dark house, there is danger in it, they (מוהרד"ף in the sefer Mizmor L'Dovid folio 111b, and the Pnei Moshe on the Yerushalmi) understood that the concern is only at night'. But this itself requires clarification, how they understood the Yerushalmi in that way. And see the sefer Shemiras HaGuf p. 342 note 6, which discusses this ↩
12 vol. 18 siman 146 ↩
[31] (Halacha 132)
Sleeping in a house alone [2]
Question: When there is light, is it permitted to sleep alone?
Answer: a. Now, according to the understanding (in the previous answer), based on the Yerushalmi that the Alter Rebbe brought, that the prohibition is on account of the darkness — 'a dark house' — and not on account of the night, if so, when there is light there is no prohibition, and therefore a candle1 or a lamp or a night-light will avail, as is written in Mizmor L'Dovid, based on the Yerushalmi, that a candle avails2.
b. In the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch) it is written that also when the moon shines into the room through the window it avails, and so wrote the Kaf HaChaim3, that both a candle and the light of the moon avail4.
Question: Is the prohibition not to sleep alone in a house, or is there a prohibition to sleep alone in any room of the house as well, even though there are other people in the house itself?
Answer: On this matter the poskim are divided. The Magen Avraham5, in the name of the Mahari"l, wrote that 'house' here means a room as well — that is, it is forbidden to sleep in a room alone even when this is in a house in which there are other people6.
But in the sefer Yefeh LaLev7 and in the sefer Ruach Chaim8 they wrote that when there are other people in the house there is no concern in sleeping alone in the rooms of the house.
And in the view of the Alter Rebbe, from the fact that he omitted the view of the Mahari"l, it appears that he did not hold this way9, but rather like the poskim who permitted sleeping in a room alone if there is another person in the house10.
And in the Aruch HaShulchan11 he writes that so is the widespread minhag: 'But it is possible that this applies specifically when there is no one in the entire house who is sleeping there, but if there is another person in the house, even though he sleeps in a room alone, there is no concern in it, and so is the widespread minhag'.
Therefore, in practice, in a house in which there are other people one may sleep in a room alone.
Notes:
1 And note the words of the Alter Rebbe in siman 90 se'if 5, that at night alone, or by day in a dark place, there are mazikin, and a candle avails because it is considered as though there are two people ↩
2 And so it is written in Biruray Halachos there ↩
3 OC there s"k 17 ↩
4 And see the references in the sefer Shemiras HaGuf VehaNefesh siman 114 se'if 5 and note 6 ↩
5 Siman 239 s"k 7. And the Knesses HaGedolah in the glosses on the Beis Yosef os 39 ↩
6 And the Mishnah Berurah wrote on this in Sha'ar HaTziyun 17, that if the door of the room is not locked but rather open to the house, when there are other people [in it], this is not called sleeping alone. But he noted that people are lenient in this and close the door. In addition he wrote that if there is only a woman in the house and there is a concern of yichud, he may close the door and need not be concerned, for 'שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע' ("one who keeps a mitzvah will know no evil") ↩
7 Vol. 1 folio 172b, in the name of the sefer HaOsios (by Harav Moshe Ashkenazi) folio 219 ↩
8 And see what is written on all this in the Sdei Chemed, Klalim, ma'areches shin siman 95, and in Divrei Chachomim siman 85 ↩
9 And so wrote Harav N. Mangel in Marei Mekomos ↩
10 And see the Biruray Halachos, which raised a question on the Magen Avraham from the Gemara in Berachos 17b — see there. And on the other hand, the sefer Vaye'ater Yitzchak, which explained the Magen Avraham in a different manner ↩
11 YD siman 239 siman 116 se'if 18. (And so it is written in Ahalech Ba'amitecha perek 12 os 8) ↩
[32] (Halacha 133)
Sleeping alone in a house [3]
Question: What sort of sleep is the forbidden one?
Answer: In the Eshel Avraham (Butchatch) there it is written that it is specifically a fixed sleep and not a temporary sleep.
Question: Does this halacha apply to women as well?
Answer: a. In the Eshel Avraham there he was in doubt, that perhaps this entire prohibition applies only to males and not to females, in whom keri is not applicable1. However, from the wording of the Alter Rebbe, who stated the prohibition without qualification, it appears that there is no difference between a man and a woman, and so it is written in practice in the Kaf HaChaim2, that there is no distinction in this between a man and a woman, for in a woman too the chitzonim attach themselves if she is alone, and harm her.
Question: Does a room that has a mezuzah in it save one from the aforementioned concern?
Answer: Indeed, in the Eshel Avraham there it is written that perhaps in a place where there is a mezuzah there is no concern3, but the Kaf HaChaim there disagreed with him and wrote that even in a room that has a mezuzah in it there is cause for concern, and so is the plain sense of the words of the Gemara and of the poskim, who wrote this halacha and did not limit it only to a room without a mezuzah, and as is written in Taharas Yom Tov in the name of his teacher4.
Question: Is there room to be more lenient on Shabbos?
Answer: In Shu"t Binyan Olam5 he proves that on Shabbos so-and-so has no dominion, and on this basis a new halacha emerges, that on Shabbos it is permitted, and this requires further examination.
But as stated above, the Alter Rebbe stated the prohibition without qualification, and did not distinguish between the days, and therefore on Shabbos too we must be careful not to sleep alone6.
Question: When there is an infant in the house, is that sufficient for one not to be considered alone?
Answer: Even a baby boy or a baby girl one day old avails to remove the danger, for one is then no longer considered alone7.
Notes:
1 And see also Ahalech Ba'amitecha perek 12 os 19 and note 30. Ayeles HaShachar on maseches Shabbos 151b ↩
2 There, os 17 ↩
3 And so it is written in Shu"t Ma'aneh Eliyahu by the Aderes siman 18, but he concluded: 'Only that I am in doubt about this, for perhaps not all the evil spirits are alike and not all matters are alike, and therefore even in a house alone there is cause for concern, and there is none among us who knows what the protection is, and may Hashem guard us in all our places, selah' ↩
4 Vol. 4 p. 399. And see what is written in the sefer Shemiras HaGuf VehaNefesh there note 7, that so it is proven from the words of the Sdei Chemed ↩
5 YD siman 62 ↩
6 And perhaps one should note from Shulchan Aruch HaRav OC siman 271 se'if 3, regarding the care taken not to make Kiddush on Shabbos night in the seventh hour ↩
7 Ahalech Ba'amitecha perek 12 os 11 and note 20 ↩
[33] (Halacha 134)
Sleeping alone in a house [4]
Question: Is it permitted to sleep alone in an open place, such as in a field?
Answer: a. It is written in Shu"t Binyan Olam1 that although the Shas wrote that it is forbidden to sleep alone in a house, in truth the intent is outdoors as well, for it is known that the dominion of the mazikin outdoors is greater than in a house2.
b. And so wrote Harav Hachossid R' Mordechai Zelbowitz (author of the sefer Ateres Mordechai) to the Rebbe: that if it is forbidden in a house, then all the more so in a field, for we are concerned about sheidim, and as is proven from maseches Megillah3 regarding the prohibition of greeting one's fellow at night, for we are concerned that perhaps he is a sheid; for the Tosafos wrote: 'The ריב"א explained that this is specifically outside the city [where mazikin are found], such as in a field and at night'. If so, we see that a field is more severe than a house.
c. But the Rebbe4 answered him that in such matters of the mazikin one cannot draw an analogy from one thing to another. And particularly since in maseches Megillah the discussion is about sheidim, whereas in maseches Shabbos it is written that he is seized by Lilis. And in the Gemara in Shabbos one could say the opposite — that it is specifically in a house that it is forbidden to sleep alone, unlike in a field.
d. The Rebbe adds that this idea, that it is possible to be more stringent in a house than in a field, is found in similar fashion in the Gemara in Pesachim5: 'one who sleeps in the shade of a solitary palm tree', that in a courtyard it is more severe than in a field. And see also Rashi, d"h velo amran, regarding the danger in drinking borrowed water, upon which an evil spirit rests, that this is specifically in a city and not in a field, since there the place is confined.
If so, in practice we are not concerned about one who sleeps alone in an open place.
Question: When one travels alone by vehicle and stops at the side of the road to rest, is there a problem in this?
Answer: There are poskim6 who wrote that when travelling in a caravan — a 'mivtzoim tank' — since it serves literally as a house, including all its fittings, its law is that of a house, in which it is forbidden to sleep alone, unless he lights a lamp.
However, when travelling in an ordinary vehicle, since it does not fall within the definition of a house, one may sleep in it according to the view of the Rebbe, that one is not to equate a house with a field, and a field is more lenient, and therefore there is no problem in sleeping in a vehicle.
Notes:
1 Chelek YD siman 62. Brought in Darkei Teshuvah s"k 66 ↩
2 And so it is written in the sefer Ahalech Ba'amitecha (Stern) perek 12 se'if 15 ↩
3 3a ↩
4 Igros Kodesh 148 ↩
5 111a ↩
6 Ahalech Ba'amitecha there os 16 ↩
[34] (Halacha 135)
Question: Is there a problem in sleeping in a cemetery?
Answer: a. The Gemara in maseches Nidah1: 'R' Shimon ben Yochai said: There are five things such that one who does them forfeits his life and his blood is upon his own head .. and one who lodges in a cemetery [at night. Rashi2] in order that a spirit of impurity should rest upon him. Sometimes they endanger him'.
Quite a number of the poskim3 brought this Gemara as halacha, and so wrote the Alter Rebbe4: 'And it is forbidden to lodge in a cemetery'.
b. The commentators discussed how to reconcile this prohibition with the Gemara in Berachos5, which relates about that chossid whose wife vexed him, and he went and lodged in a cemetery — how did he do this? Therefore some explained6 that the entire Gemara there is a dream that that chossid dreamt, and not that he actually went to lodge there. And some wrote7 that since he was compelled to flee from the quarrel with his wife, and did not want the neighbours to become aware of their strife, no place remained for him other than the cemetery. And the Chasam Sofer8 added in explanation that he had no choice, since he was in a place that was not protected from wild animals and the like, and he was compelled to protect himself behind the wall of the cemetery; and he ruled novelly there that for a talmid chochom it is permitted. And some wrote9 that he was outside the four amos of the graves. (And as for what is written in Shu"t Machaneh Chaim10, to rule novelly that there were other people with him and that the entire prohibition is to sleep alone — this requires examination: from where does he derive such a thing?).
Question: Is there a difference between day and night in this matter?
Now, from the unqualified wording of the Alter Rebbe, who wrote that it is forbidden to lodge and did not write 'at night', it appears that in this matter there is no difference between day and night; rather, the very act of sleeping in the cemetery is the problematic thing. And so it is written in Yad Dovid11: See in Chagigah, regarding 'who is a shoteh', that there Rashi explained specifically at night. And I wrote there that 'lodging' need not necessarily be at night, but rather any tarrying is called 'lodging'; and here Rashi explained nothing, and it is possible that even by day too his blood is upon his own head. And so it is written in Pesach Einayim, that 'lodging' can apply by day12.
Therefore, in practice one should not sleep in the cemetery even by day.
Question: What should a watchman in a cemetery do?
Answer: Insofar as the watchman sleeps inside a designated lodge, there is room to say that this is judged as a domain unto itself, and it is therefore permitted13.
Notes:
1 17a ↩
2 Chagigah 3b ↩
3 In Chupas Eliyahu Rabbah sha'ar 3 he counted this among the things that remove a person from the world. And the Pri Chodosh cited this Gemara, YD siman 116 s"k 9. Darkei Teshuvah there s"k 62. The Chofetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos on Nidah there, Ein Mishpat os 7 ↩
4 Hilchos Shemiras Guf V'Nefesh se'if 6 ↩
5 Folio 18b ↩
6 Even Shuaib, Derashos Rosh Hashanah. Perush HaKosev on the Ein Yaakov, based on the Ritva in Bava Basra 73a. The Maharsh"a ח"א d"h ma'aseh. The Tzlach ↩
7 Beis Yosef YD siman 179 ↩
8 Shu"t vol. 2 YD siman 335 ↩
9 Shu"t Mishneh Halachos vol. 10 siman 30 and vol. 19 siman 34 ↩
10 Vol. 3 YD siman 40 ↩
11 Nidah 17a ↩
12 However, note the Turei Even there, who wrote that 'lodging' is specifically at night ↩
13 Shemiras HaGuf VehaNefesh siman 121 note 1 ↩
[35] (Halacha 136)
Bloodletting [1]
Question: In a number of places in Chazal and in the Shulchan Aruch, halachos appear regarding bloodletting — what is 'bloodletting'?
Answer: Bloodletting is a medical procedure of drawing off blood by means of an incision, which was performed by an expert physician, an 'uman'1. Its purpose was the removal of excess blood from the patient; in the bloodletting itself they would draw off a large quantity of blood, and there could be a situation of losing much blood2. It was also used for situations of pikuach nefesh3. This procedure was so important that it is counted among the things that a husband is obligated to fund for his wife, like mezonos, and in the language of Chazal4: 'They treated bloodletting in Eretz Yisroel as a medical treatment that has no fixed limit'5.
Question: What is the practical difference between donating blood and a blood test, and bloodletting?
Answer: Donating blood — is similar to bloodletting in that it is an act of drawing off blood. The differences between them are: a. In the quantity — that in bloodletting they would draw off a large quantity, unlike in donating blood. b. In the purpose of the drawing off — in bloodletting the purpose is for the medical benefit of the one from whom the blood is drawn, unlike in donating blood, where the primary purpose is for the saving of others. c. In bloodletting — danger is possible; in donating blood there is no danger to the donor.
A blood test — is similar to donating blood, but the discussion is about a small quantity, and it is not for the needs of others, nor is it a medical procedure, but only a check of one's condition6.
And below we shall study the approach of halacha to bloodletting, and afterwards we shall see which of these halachos apply also to donating blood and to a blood test.
Question: Is it permitted to touch the place of bloodletting before netilas yodayim?
Answer: The Gemara in maseches Shabbos7 says: 'He used to say: .. a hand to לחסודה — let it be cut off'. And so wrote the Alter Rebbe in his Shulchan Aruch, in the Mahadura Kama8: 'And likewise he should not touch with his hands, before the washing, the place of the bloodletting'. And so he wrote in the Mahadura Tinyana9: 'And they also warned strongly not to touch with the hand before the washing .. nor the place of bloodletting'.
According to this, one must be careful, before netilas yodayim, not to touch the place from which the blood was drawn, [though it should be noted that in the Alter Rebbe's Siddur he omitted this caution].
On this basis it is worthwhile to be careful also with a blood test and with donating blood: insofar as a wound remains in the place, not to touch it before the netilas yodayim of the morning.
Notes:
1 Kiddushin 82a, Rashi d"h gara ↩
2 Kiddushin there. Shabbos 129a ↩
3 Yoma 84a ↩
4 Kesubos 52b ↩
5 See on all this in the sefer Bedomayich Chayi perek 2 ↩
6 On all this see in the sefer Bedomayich Chayi there ↩
7 108b ↩
8 Siman 4 se'if 6 ↩
9 Siman 4 se'if 2 ↩
[36] (Halacha 137)
Bloodletting [2]
Question: Does one need to wash his hands after bloodletting?
Answer: a. The Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'Demsucher and did not wash his hands — he is frightened for seven days'. And Rashi wrote there: 'Demsucher — one who lets blood from the shoulders; an expression of sichurei'.
And so the Alter Rebbe wrote in the Mahadura Kama2: 'One who lets blood from the shoulders and did not wash his hands afterwards is frightened for seven days and does not know of what he is frightened'.
Question: Does the obligation of netilas yodayim apply specifically to bloodletting, or also to other treatments involving the drawing of blood for a medical need?
Answer: the Pri Megadim3 wrote: 'And I do not know whether included in this is what they call shrepfin or bankes [cupping glasses], and likewise a leech, which they call igel or piavkes — whether he needs to wash his hands. And it appears that it is not such a bother, and he should wash his hands for this too'. And so the Mishnah Berurah wrote4.
Accordingly, with regard to actions that resemble bloodletting in that they involve the drawing of blood for a medical need, the poskim wrote that in practice one should wash the hands. And seemingly also those treated with dialysis (may Hashem send them a refuah sheleimah) must wash their hands after the treatment.
Question: Are blood donation or a blood test also included in this law?
Answer: the Nishmas Avraham5 writes in the name of Harav Sh. Z. Auerbach that perhaps all these laws were said only where it is done as it was in the time of the Talmud — that is, that the drawing of the blood is itself the cure; and therefore in his view one must wash the hands only for a drawing of blood which is itself the treatment, and not for the purpose of a test. And moreover, he holds with regard to blood donation, since it is done for the benefit of others, which is a mitzvah as above of saving lives, that concerning this it is said שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע ("one who keeps a mitzvah will know no evil"), and there is no concern and he need not wash his hands.
But he wrote there that many poskim6 disagreed with this and wrote that also after blood donation one must wash his hands, since it is included in bloodletting, whose nature is the drawing of a large quantity of blood. However for a blood test one need not wash. And in the Leket HaKemach HeChodosh7 he wrote that also for a blood test one must wash his hands.
Therefore in practice after blood donation one must wash the hands, and it is proper to wash also for a blood test.
Notes:
1 112a ↩
2 siman 4 se'if 19 ↩
3 Eshel Avraham siman 4 s"k 22 ↩
4 s"k 48 ↩
5 siman 4 note 5 ↩
6 They are indicated in the sefer B'domayich Chayi p. 53 ↩
7 s"k 81 ↩
[37] (Halacha 138)
Bloodletting [3]
Question: How great is the importance of eating and drinking after bloodletting?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'One who let blood and has nothing to eat — let him sell the shoes on his feet and supply from them the needs of a seudah. What are the needs of a seudah? Rav said: meat; and Shmuel said: wine. Rav said: meat — a life in place of a life. And Shmuel said: wine — redness in place of redness .. And all ruses are forbidden, except for this ruse, which is permitted: one who did the thing and cannot manage it — let him take a defective zuz and go to seven shops, until he has tasted the measure of a revi'is'.
And so the Alter Rebbe writes2: 'Either the day of bloodletting or the day he entered the bathhouse, for the way of every person, unqualifiedly, is to establish his seudah upon wine on these days'.
And he further wrote3: 'Anyone who let blood and has nothing with which to restore his nefesh — the Chachomim gave him counsel that he should take in his hand a defective dinar [= not every seller agrees to accept payment with a defective dinar] and go to the shopkeeper and taste the wine, to see whether it is good enough to buy; and afterwards, when he wishes to buy, the shopkeeper will not take the dinar, and he will go off to another shopkeeper and do so, until he has tasted a revi'is. And even though with our bloodletting there is not so much of a concern, in any case one may learn from this for other illnesses'.
We see in the Gemara and in the words of the Alter Rebbe that it is very important to eat and to drink after bloodletting, and so was the minhag, to drink wine after bloodletting; and this is important to such a degree that one tells a person to sell his shoes for the sake of this. And moreover, on account of the concern for a person's health they permitted even to practise a ruse upon the wine sellers for one who has nothing with which to restore his nefesh after the bloodletting.
And seemingly, according to what was explained in the previous halacha4, after blood donation too one should be particular about this and taste something in order to strengthen himself.
Question: What else must one be careful about after bloodletting?
Answer: in addition, the Gemara in Maseches Niddah5 says: 'R' Shimon ben Yochai said: there are five things such that one who does them is liable for his life and his blood is upon his own head .. and one who lets blood and cohabits with his wife .. for the master said: one who lets blood and cohabits with his wife — he will have children who are vaytekin; if both of them let blood and cohabited — he will have children who are ba'alei ra'ason. Rav said: and we said this only where he did not taste anything, but where he tasted something — we have no concern with it'.
And so the Alter Rebbe writes6: 'And one who lets blood and cohabits with his wife before he has tasted anything after the bloodletting — his blood is upon his own head'.
Accordingly it is forbidden to cohabit with his wife immediately after bloodletting, before he eats.
Notes:
1 129a ↩
2 OC siman 174 se'if 9 ↩
3 In siman 156 se'if 20 ↩
4 See the marei mekomos indicated there ↩
5 17a ↩
6 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 5 ↩
[38] (Halacha 139)
Bloodletting [4]
Question: Which are the weekdays on which it is not proper to perform bloodletting?
Answer: the Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'And Shmuel said: the time for bloodletting — the first day of the week, the fourth, and erev Shabbos. But on the second and the fifth — no; for the master said: one who has the merit of the fathers, let him let blood on the second and on the fifth, for the beis din above and the beis din below are equal as one. On the third day of the week, what is the reason not? — because Mars stands for him in even numbers. On erev Shabbos too it stands in even numbers! — since many have trodden upon it, שומר פתאים ה' ("Hashem protects the simple")'.
And so the Alter Rebbe writes (ibid.): 'And one should not let blood except on the first day of the week and on the fourth and on erev Shabbos, but not on the second and the third and the fifth'.
Accordingly, one who plans to donate blood, and not because of an urgent need, and has the possibility of choosing on which day to donate, should choose Sunday, Wednesday or Friday.
But with regard to a blood test, which is very different from bloodletting, one need not be particular about this2, and particularly since many have trodden upon it.
Question: Is it permitted to let blood on erev Yom Tov?
Answer: the Alter Rebbe wrote3: 'All Yisroel have the minhag not to let blood on any erev Yom Tov, and it is not to be changed, because on the day of Shavuos, before the giving of the Torah, there went forth a ruach whose name was Tavoach, that if Yisroel would not accept the Torah he would slaughter their blood and their flesh; therefore there is a danger for the generations to let blood on that day, that is, on erev Shavuos4.
And the Chachomim decreed upon every erev Yom Tov on account of erev Shavuos. And in any case, on the erev of the last Yom Tov of Pesach it is permitted to let blood, for it is all one festival, and it is not erev Yom Tov but rather the middle of the days of Yom Tov.
But on the erev of the last Yom Tov of the festival, that is, on Hoshana Rabbah, it is forbidden to let blood, for it is truly erev Yom Tov, since Shemini Atzeres is a festival in its own right with regard to a number of matters. And on the night of erev Yom Tov it is permitted to let blood, except for the night of Hoshana Rabbah, which is a night of judgement'.
And all this is with regard to bloodletting; but with regard to the placing of cupping glasses the Alter Rebbe writes5: 'The bloodletting that is called kep zetzin [= cupping glasses6] — since it is not similar to actual bloodletting, one may permit it on erev Pesach and on erev Sukkos, whose prohibition is only on account of a mere decree; but on erev Shavuos, whose prohibition is on account of danger, one should be careful, and likewise on Hoshana Rabbah, which is a day of judgement'.
When erev Shavuos falls on Shabbos, the poskim agreed7 that the care applies on erev Shabbos.
And likewise they disagreed with regard to erev Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, and the main view is to be stringent on them too like every Yom Tov8.
Accordingly, in practice: 1) it is forbidden to let blood on all the erevs of the festivals. 2) On Hoshana Rabbah, which is erev Shemini Atzeres, it is forbidden even on the night before (the night of Hoshana Rabbah). 3) On the erev of the seventh day of Pesach it is permitted, both at night and by day. 4) With regard to cupping glasses it is forbidden only on erev Shavuos and on Hoshana Rabbah.
All this is with regard to bloodletting, and tomorrow, b'ezras Hashem, the details of the halachos with regard to blood tests and blood donation on these days will be sent.
Notes:
1 129b ↩
2 See below with regard to the drawing of blood by means of cupping glasses, which the Alter Rebbe forbade only on erev Shavuos ↩
3 OC siman 468 se'if 22, from Shabbos 129b ↩
4 And to note from the words of the Machatzis HaShekel there in s"k 15: 'And it is known that at all the times at which some matter befell our fathers, when that time arrives there is again aroused something of the matter of that thing and that matter ↩
5 Ibid. se'if 23 ↩
6 Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham s"k 15 ↩
7 Yafeh LaLev vol. 2 os 4. Darkei Teshuvah siman 116 s"k 80. Kaf HaChaim siman 468 s"k 98, from the Mahari Bruna in the name of the Mahari"l ↩
8 Shu"t Revavos Efraim vol. 1 OC siman 340 in the name of Harav Sh. Z. Braun. Nohag Katzon Yosef p. 262 ↩
[39] (Halacha 140)
Bloodletting [5]
We learned in the previous halacha that: 1) it is forbidden to let blood on all the erevs of the festivals (except for the erev of the seventh day of Pesach). 2) On Hoshana Rabbah, which is erev Shemini Atzeres, it is forbidden even on the night before it (the night of Hoshana Rabbah). 3) With regard to cupping glasses it is forbidden only on erev Shavuos and Hoshana Rabbah.
Question: What is the case with regard to blood donation and blood tests on these days?
Answer: the poskim disagree in this; there are those who hold that this law applies only to bloodletting, and therefore it is permitted to perform a blood test and the like1. And there is one who wrote2 that the law of a blood test is like that of cupping glasses.
However there are those who hold that there is no difference in this, and that it is forbidden to perform any action that involves the drawing of blood on the erevs of the festivals, [and moreover there are those who hold that a blood test is even more stringent than cupping glasses3]; and we shall quote the wording of the Tzitz Eliezer4, who elaborated in this and wrote: 'We have learned from what has been said that on the erevs of Yomim Tovim, and especially on erev Shavuos, one should avoid any action upon the body that causes the opening of the blood vessels, or the dislodging and flowing of blood from place to place and its bursting outward, or any change whatsoever in the natural course of the blood in the body, for there is a concern of danger in this; for inasmuch as on this day the mazal of Yisroel was impaired, and permission was given on it at that time — even if conditionally — to strike harmfully at the flesh of their body and their blood .. and to cast him into a snare through that same opening, and from that opening in the body which the person opened for himself .. and on this day the attribute of judgement grows stronger to a greater degree, and permission is given to the accuser to accuse'.
In practice one must refrain from blood donation and from a blood test on the erevs of the festivals, and particularly on Shavuos, unless there is an immediate need for the blood test, such as a sick person for whom the delay itself constitutes a concern of danger5.
Question: Is there a mitzvah to donate blood?
Answer: blood donation involves no concern of danger6, and it is a thing that saves lives, and it is an act of gemilus chesed with his body. And our Chachomim already said, 'Whoever sustains one soul of Yisroel — Scripture accounts it to him as though he had sustained an entire world'7; and therefore there is a mitzvah for one who is able to donate blood8.
[The poskim disagree as to whether there is also an obligation in this, such as in a case where there is at present an actual instance of danger to life, (and likewise what the law is in a case of an unusual blood donation which may possibly involve a risk), and this is not the place to elaborate9].
Notes:
1 MiBeis Levi, kovetz 7 p. 18, and the kovetz on the matters of the month of Nissan-Sivan p. 37 and note 5 ↩
2 Shu"t Revavos Efraim vol. 1 OC siman 340 ↩
3 Kovetz Heoros U'Biurim issue 1021 ↩
4 Vol. 12 siman 46 os 6 ↩
5 Moed L'Chol Chai siman 8, month of Sivan, se'if 2. Darkei Teshuvah YD siman 116 s"k 80 in the name of Mizmor L'Dovid daf 111b ↩
6 Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 5 CM siman 219. Shearim HaMetzuyanim BaHalacha vol. 4 siman 190 s"k 4. But to note from Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer vol. 16 siman 23 ↩
7 Sanhedrin 37a ↩
8 B'domayich Chayi perek 1 pp. 21 - 22. Shu"t Vayeishev Moshe vol. 2 teshuvah 94 ↩
9 See Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer vol. 16 teshuvah 23. Bad Kodesh vol. 4 siman 52 p. 64. Shevet HaLevi vol. 5 siman 219. Nishmas Avraham vol. 4 EH siman 80 s"k 1. B'domayich Chayi ibid. ↩
[41] (Halacha 142)
Entering a place of danger [2]
We learned in the previous halacha that it is forbidden for a person to endanger himself.
Question: Is it permitted for a person to work for his livelihood in a dangerous place?
Answer: the Gemara in Maseches Bava Metzia1 says, with regard to the risks that a worker takes upon himself in his work: 'As it is taught: ואליו הוא נשא את נפשו ("and upon it he sets his life") — for what reason did this one go up on a ramp, and hang from a tree, and deliver himself to death — was it not for his wages?'.
From the wording of the beraisa we see that a person, for the sake of his livelihood, performs dangerous acts to such a degree that he is defined as one who 'delivered himself to death'; and the poskim learned from this2 a halachic principle, that for the need of a livelihood it is permitted for a person to place himself in danger.
This foundation is brought for the first time in Shu"t Noda BiYehuda with regard to entering a forest, which is a place of bands of wild beasts and of robbers, and these are his words: 'And now I say that there is even a prohibition (in one who goes to hunt there for recreation), for all those who occupy themselves with this must enter the forests and bring themselves into great dangers in the place of bands of beasts, and the Merciful One said ונשמרתם מאוד לנפשותיכם ("and you shall greatly guard your souls"); and who is greater for us and a craftsman expert in hunting more than Esav, of whom Scripture testified ויהי עשו איש יודע ציד וכו' ("and Esav was a man who knew hunting, etc.")? And go out and see what he said about himself: הנה אנכי הולך למות וגו' ("behold, I am going to die, etc."); and a verse does not depart from its plain meaning — namely, that he was endangering himself every day among bands of beasts, and so too the Ramban explained. And now, how shall a Jewish man bring himself into a place of bands of wild beasts? And even in this, one who is poor and does this for his sustenance — for such a one the Torah permitted, like all the sea merchants across the sea, that whatever is for the need of his sustenance and his livelihood, there is no choice, and the Torah said ואליו הוא נושא את נפשו, and Rabboseinu z"l said: for what reason did this one go up on a ramp and hang from a tree and deliver himself to death — was it not for his wages, etc.? But one whose main intent is not for his sustenance, and who out of the desire of his heart goes to a place of bands of beasts and brings himself into danger — this one transgresses ונשמרתם מאוד'.
However there is one who wrote3 that things that were forbidden on account of danger (such as those brought in Chazal — a leaning wall and the like) are not to be permitted even for the need of a livelihood.
But in practice the poskim accepted4 the words of the Noda BiYehuda, that on the level of principle it is permitted for a person to place himself in danger for the need of a livelihood, except in a case where the danger is very great, as was written in Shu"t Shem Aryeh; and this is the content of his words: 'That for sustenance, which is a necessary thing, there is no concern on account of danger, for with his life he brings his bread. But when it is very dangerous, one should not endanger himself even for a necessary need'.
Question: Is there a permit to enter a place of danger for the need of a trip or of enjoyment?
Answer: as we have learned, it is forbidden for a person to endanger himself, and as the Alter Rebbe writes5: 'And anyone who transgresses them and says, I am endangering myself .. or I am not particular about this — is liable to makkas mardus'. And therefore it is an obligation upon a person to take trips and to go only to safe attractions.
Indeed, when the very travel by ship or by aeroplane constituted a danger, as was the case in the past, there were poskim6 who forbade travelling in them; but of course today this is not considered a danger (even according to those who have the practice of reciting HaGomel, and this is not the place for it).
And so too it is permitted to go out on a trip or to attractions in which there is no danger, such as when they are supervised by the authorized authorities and are conducted according to the rules of caution. But when there is no supervision or the required caution, the thing is forbidden.
Notes:
1 112a ↩
2 Noda BiYehuda Mahadura Tinyana YD siman 10. Shu"t Shem Aryeh YD siman 27. Avnei Nezer OC siman 428 os 11 ↩
3 In the sefer Imrei Yaakov on Shulchan Aruch HaRav, CM, Biurim, d"h O Leileich ↩
4 Igros Moshe CM vol. 1 siman 104. Tzitz Eliezer vol. 15 siman 37. Be'er Moshe (Stern) vol. 7, Kuntres Elektrik 2, siman 83. Pischei Choshen vol. 6 (Nezikin) - notes, perek 2 ↩
5 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 4 ↩
6 Shem Aryeh. Be'er Moshe ibid. ↩
[42] (Halacha 687)
The prohibition of eating fish and meat together [1]
Question: What is the source for not eating fish with meat?
Answer: the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'That fish which was roasted together with meat2 [= a fish that was roasted together with meat] — Rava of Parzikya forbade eating it with kutach [= with kutach (which is dairy)]. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: even with salt it is likewise forbidden3 [= that is, he forbade eating it at all], because it is harmful to the odour and to 'another thing' [= tzoraas]'.
Accordingly the Amoraim disagreed with regard to fish and meat that were roasted together in an oven: that in the view of Rava of Parzikya the fish became meaty and it is forbidden to eat it with milk, and in the view of Mar bar Rav Ashi it is forbidden to eat it at all.
And seemingly the halacha is like the view of Mar bar Rav Ashi, that it is forbidden to eat this at all and not only with kutach, for many Rishonim wrote that in general the halacha is like Mar bar Rav Ashi; and as Rashi wrote4: 'And like Mar bar Rav Ashi we hold in all places — except for two, mikhtav odaisa5 and the reversal of an oath'6.
And so the Rif wrote7: 'In this matter I have seen a dispute among the Rabbonim: there is one who says that the halacha is not like Mar bar Rav Ashi, and there is one who says the halacha is like Mar bar Rav Ashi — that wherever it is not stated explicitly that the halacha is not like Mar bar Rav Ashi, the halacha is like him; and we have not found in the entire Talmud that the halacha is not like him except for these two, the reversal of an oath8 and chivarei9; and your mnemonic is הפך לבן; and this is the view of Rabbeinu Hai Gaon zt"l'. And the Nimukei Yosef wrote: 'It appears that the view of the Rav is likewise to rule like Mar bar Rav Ashi, and some of the mefarshim z"l wrote ..'.
And so the Tosafos wrote in Avodah Zarah10: 'And it does not appear so, for there it says that there was an actual case with that fish which was roasted together with meat, and Rava of Parzeka forbade eating it with kutach, and an actual case is weighty; and Mar bar Rav Ashi also forbids there even with salt, and the halacha is like him except for two matters'.
And so the Rid wrote11 concerning this dispute: 'That fish which was roasted together with meat — Rabbah of Parzikya forbade eating it with kutach, for he holds that odour is a substantive matter. Mar the son of Rav Ashi said: even with salt it is likewise not [permitted], for the odour is harmful for him with regard to "another thing". The explanation: to tzoraas, for one who eats fish and meat is susceptible to tzoraas; and he holds that odour is a substantive matter. And although Abaye and Rava disagreed in this matter in Avodah Zarah, in perek HaSocher, regarding bas tiha — for Abaye holds that odour is a substantive matter — and we hold that with Abaye and Rava the halacha is like Rava except for יע"ל קג"ם, here the halacha is like Mar bar Ashi, for we hold that the halacha is like Mar bar Rav Ashi because he is the later one. See in erech 38 in the Sefer HaMachria'.
And so we find with further Rishonim who brought this care, and as the Semak wrote12: 'And there are also those who say that even if he roasted meat with fish it is forbidden to eat it, because it is harmful for "another thing" (the explanation: tzoraas); and this is specifically in a small oven of the type they had, but in large ovens of the type we have one need not be particular ..'. The Mahari"l (Minhogim) brought it, Hilchos Issur V'Heter from the Shaarei Dura: 'And one should conduct oneself so also with regard to the roasting of fish with meat, for it is harmful for "another thing", in the Semak'.
[Except that the Rambam did not mention this care with regard to the eating of meat and fish, and the Acharonim elaborated in discussing the reason for the omission, and it will be explained in the next halacha]
And so the Tur ruled13: 'And one must be careful not to eat meat and fish together, for it is harmful for tzoraas'.
And so Maran the Mechaber wrote l'halacha14: 'One must be careful not to eat meat and fish together, because it is harmful for tzoraas'. And the Rema wrote in a hagahah: 'And likewise one should not roast meat with fish, on account of the odour. However bedieved it does not forbid'.
And so the Alter Rebbe wrote15: '..and they are harmful for tzoraas, and likewise one who eats fish and meat as one, as has been explained in YD siman 116'.
--------------
Notes:
1 76b ↩
2 Rashi and most of the mefarshim explained that it is not speaking of their being actually cooked together, but only that they were roasted in one oven, and on account of the law that odour is a substantive matter. However the Maharsha"l in the Yam Shel Shlomo (Chullin perek 7 siman 15) wrote: 'That this case is not speaking of where he roasted them in one oven .. but rather he roasted it with actual meat, and even so Rava did not forbid it with salt, and Mar bar R"A forbade it even with salt' ↩
3 In Shu"t Yad Chanoch siman 35 os 4 he explained the novelty in the words of the Gemara, that it is forbidden even with salt: 'And know that I saw in the Chidushim of Rabbeinu the Rashbatz z"l on the first perek of Niddah, who wrote regarding those matters of danger stated there, that if one puts into them a grain of salt we have no concern with it and the danger is nullified, and there is no concern in eating even if a night passed over it. (And the sefer is not in my hand; it only appeared to me at this moment, while I was a wayfarer fleeing on account of the oppressor): And by these words of the Rashbatz I understand that which they said (Berachos 55a), one who eats מריגי of an animal — this is a danger; and in the Gemara (Shabbos 81a) there is in a version, one who eats מוריגי of an animal בל"א מל"ח — and that is because in matters of danger, if one puts salt into them we have no concern with it: I subsequently saw that these words of the Rashbatz mentioned have their source in the Shas, perek Eilu Treifos (Chullin 49b), Rav Papa, when he had something uncovered, would cast brine into it, and Rashi explains, because the power of the sharpness in the brine burns the venom and it no longer harms; and so too with salt: And with these words of the Rashbatz mentioned above one may explain the words of the Shas, perek Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim 76b), that fish which was roasted together with meat — Mar bar Rav Ashi forbade eating it on account of danger even with salt. And according to the explanation of the words of the Rashbatz the meaning will be that even though with the other matters of danger we hold that if one puts salt into it we have no concern with it — and as we find regarding מוריגי of an animal, that even though there is a danger in eating them, even so if he eats them with salt there is no danger in it, and so too with the other matters — but here Mar bar Rav Ashi forbade eating this fish even with salt. And I heard something close to this from a certain chochom from the city of Chust: However in the Gemara (Pesachim 30a), regarding that oven in which they smeared טיחיא, we also find this expression, that it was forbidden to eat the bread even with salt; and there this explanation is not applicable, and see Rashi there' ↩
4 Chullin 76b ↩
5 Sanhedrin 29b ↩
6 Shevuos 40a ↩
7 Sanhedrin 8a - b, and see also the Rosh, Chullin perek 4 siman 7 ↩
8 Shevuos 40a ↩
9 Chullin 76b ↩
10 66b, and so it is in Shevuos 41a in the name of the BeHaG and Seder Tannaim, and Rabbeinu Chananel ↩
11 Piskim on Maseches Pesachim 76b ↩
12 Mitzvah 213 ↩
13 YD siman 116 ↩
14 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 116 se'if 2. Except that in siman 95 se'if 1 the Mechaber wrote: 'Fish that were cooked or roasted in a meat pot that was well washed, in which no fat is stuck, may be eaten with kutach, since it is nosen taam bar nosen taam of a permitted thing. And if it was not well washed, if there is in the substance upon the surface of the pot more than one in sixty relative to the fish, it is forbidden to eat them with kutach'. And from the plain wording it implies that there is no problem with eating fish that were cooked with remnants of meat; and the Taz explained there in s"k 3: 'And one cannot say that it implies here that the fish is forbidden specifically with milk, but by itself it is permitted — for it contains a prohibition on account of danger, as is written in siman 116, that there is a danger if a fish was cooked with meat; for here he did not descend to this law but only to what pertains to the matter of nosen taam bar nosen taam. And so the Rashal wrote in perek Gid HaNasheh siman 15 ..'. And so it is written in the Be'er Sheva in the responsa, siman 35 ↩
15 Hilchos Shemiras Guf VaNefesh se'if 9 ↩
[2] (Halacha 688)
Question: Does the prohibition of eating meat and fish apply in our times as well?
Answer: It was brought in the previous halacha that the Rambam did not mention the ruling of Mar bar Rav Ashi that it is forbidden to eat meat with fish, and in explaining the reason for this omission the Be'er Sheva wrote1: 'Because he holds that Mar bar Rav Ashi himself said that there is danger only specifically in the country of Bavel, in which the Sages of the Gemara were, Mar bar Rav Ashi among them, and they did not rely in this on their own wisdom whatsoever, but relied solely on the statement of the holy Chazal, who themselves revealed their view to us, explained and clarified, when they said that the taste of a fish that comes up from Akko is not like that of one that comes up from Aspamya .. And from here it is implied, according to the Rif and the Rambam z"l, that it never entered the mind of Mar bar Rav Ashi that this danger should apply to fish in all the lands of the world, since the taste of fish varies according to the nature of the sea of the country in which they are; if so, certainly the nature of the fish too varies according to the nature of the sea of the country in which they are. And there is a clear and well-known proof for this, for we also find that Chazal said at the end of the first perek of Moed Katan that the remedy for fish is to drink water after it, and Tosafos wrote there that in these times they hold it to be dangerous to drink water after it, and perhaps the remedies in the Gemara have changed and are not good in these times, or perhaps the rivers of Bavel were more beneficial for it. You see that the Sages of the Gemara spoke about the conduct of a remedy for fish specifically according to the natures of their own country, and it never entered their minds that there should be one single practice regarding a remedy for fish in all the lands; and this is for the reason I have written .. And further it may be said that there was a tradition in the hands of the Rif and the Rambam and those who agree with them that Mar bar Rav Ashi did not say that this danger exists in all species of fish, but only in one species alone, and so I too received from the elder rabbonim of Ashkenaz; and because it was established for the Rif and the Rambam and those who agree with them that that species of fish is not found among us at all, just as many other things mentioned in the Gemara are not found among us, therefore they ruled that the fish themselves are permitted to be eaten without milk'2.
And in a similar vein the Magen Avraham wrote3: 'And it is possible that nowadays there is not so much danger, for we see a number of things mentioned in the Gemara that are a danger on account of ruach ra'ah and other matters, yet nowadays they do not cause harm, since the natures have changed; and also everything is according to the nature of the lands. And see YD siman 316 se'if 3 and EH siman 156. And so wrote the Be'er Sheva in the name of the Rambam'4.
[And it is to be noted from Shu"t Maharsha"m5: 'But with regard to fish with meat, where the Magen Avraham inclined to say that in these times there is no danger, and I also said to רו"מ in the name of the sefer HaKanah that after the fifth millennium the danger ceased; but I have not seen it myself — only ח"א told me so'].
But the poskim did not accept this novel ruling of the Magen Avraham [but only as a supporting factor for leniency in a time of need], as the Shvus Yaakov wrote6: '.. The Magen Avraham too, in OC siman 173 se'if 21, wrote that it is possible that in these times there is not so much danger; although one may not rely on him in this where there is a doubt of danger, nevertheless in such a case, where there is sixty and the opinion of the acharonim is to be lenient to nullify in sixty, one should not be stringent nowadays at all, as above ..'.
And in the Noheg KaTzon Yosef7, brought by the Ruach Chaim8, it is written: 'According to this, one should not be lenient to act as the Bach9 wrote in OC siman 173 in the name of the Rambam z"l, that it is possible that in these times there is not so much danger, because we see a number of things mentioned in the Gemara that are a danger on account of ruach ra'ah and other matters, and nowadays they do not cause harm, since the natures have changed — end of quote. On the contrary, I say that the natures have changed for the worse10, for nature continues to weaken; and the Bach himself concluded: and also everything is according to the lands. And why should we be lenient in something in which we are able to be careful?'.
And the Mahara"m Shik11 wrote: 'And for this reason, also the words of the Magen Avraham in siman 173 s"k 1, mentioned above, who wrote that it is possible that it has changed, do not appear correct to me, and his words require study; for there too he is dealing with things that are forbidden on account of danger, and in a matter of pikuach nefesh we do not follow the majority, and regarding the minority it is impossible for physicians to testify, as above. If so, from where do we know to say that it has changed? On the contrary, we follow the chazakah, and it is in the chazakah of not having changed. And all the more so it is impossible to permit on account of a doubt that perhaps it has changed; and a doubt of a Torah prohibition, or a doubt of danger — in a doubt one is stringent. And how did the Magen Avraham write that it is possible that it has changed? This requires study'.
And it is to be noted from what the Chasam Sofer wrote12: 'And it appears more [correct] that, according to the immensity of his wisdom, he knew and understood that the natures have changed in this matter .. And in the Magen Avraham siman 173 s"k 1 he too wrote that it is possible that the natures have changed, and he brings other proofs; nevertheless all the proofs can be refuted .. Rather, because we see that the Rambam, whose strength was great in medicine and the natural sciences, omitted the above, therefore he tested it in his investigation and found that the natures have changed in this .. And now, granted that we will not rely on this to act practically and eat them one with the other, since it is possible that it has the status of something forbidden by a count, and it is possible that all those answers that were said with regard to gilui do not apply here, and therefore we are careful, and the custom of our fathers is Torah — nevertheless we have gained that we have emerged from the stringency of danger, for now, at any rate, there is no danger; and it is possible that even in their times the danger was only in the species binisa and not in the species that are found among us at all, and there is nothing here but a light rabbinic prohibition. For granted that something forbidden by a count is [treated as] Torah law, that is [where it was] forbidden as a fence and a safeguard against a prohibition, but in such a case it is far lighter ..'.
And in practice we have seen that the Alter Rebbe mentioned the prohibition of eating fish with meat, and so wrote most of the poskim, as the Kaf HaChaim wrote13: 'And if so, since this matter is subject to a dispute, and danger is treated stringently, and it is possible to be careful, one who guards his soul will keep far away and will be careful to fulfill the words of Chazal'. And so is the widespread minhag throughout all the dispersions of Yisroel, that they are careful not to eat fish and meat together.
--------------
Notes:
1 Shu"t siman 35 ↩
2 And see also Shu"t Chasam Sofer, which will be brought below ↩
3 OC siman 173 s"k 1 ↩
4 And so he wrote in siman 179 s"k 8, that the natures have changed; but see what the Pri Megadim and the Machatzis HaShekel wrote there. And it is to be noted that although siman 173 in the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe has not reached us, in siman 179 se'if 8 he wrote, with regard to the ruling of eating salt after the seudah in order to avoid harm, 'and nowadays they do not practice eating salt after a seudah at all, and they are not harmed, because the natures have changed, as is explained in siman 173'. And this is essentially what the Magen Avraham wrote with regard to the danger of eating fish and meat; but on the other hand, we saw in the previous halacha that in Hilchos Shemiras Guf V'Nefesh he did mention the prohibition of eating fish and meat ↩
5 Vol. 4 siman 124 ↩
6 Shu"t vol. 3 siman 70 ↩
7 Erech seudah os 3 (28, 4) ↩
8 By Harav Chaim Palagi, vol. 1 siman 173 ↩
9 It would seem it should read: Magen Avraham ↩
10 And it is to be noted from the Vikuach Mayim Chaim, klal 20 se'if 15 ↩
11 Shu"t YD siman 244 ↩
12 Vol. 2 YD siman 101 ↩
13 OC siman 173 s"k 9 ↩
[3] (Halacha 689)
In the previous halachos we saw the words of Mar bar Rav רשי, that there is a danger in eating fish with meat.
Question: Is the danger and the prohibition specifically when they were roasted together, or may they not be eaten together even when each one was cooked on its own?
Answer: There are rishonim who wrote that the prohibition itself is only in cooking or roasting [them together] and eating them together, as is written in the Hagahos Mordechai1: 'Fish and meat, to be cooked together and eaten, is harmful to the scent of the mouth and [leads] to tzora'as — end of quote. And it appears to me, a simple person, that from here they are careful in Ashkenaz and France not to eat fish and meat one after the other without kinuach; however, it is implied that there is no danger except by way of cooking and being eaten together'.
And the Rema in Darkei Moshe2 wrote in the name of the Issur V'Heter HaAruch: 'In the Issur V'Heter HaAruch, klal 39, he wrote that l'chatchilah it is forbidden to roast meat together with fish on account of reicha milsa, but after the fact it is permitted, for there is no danger except by way of cooking; and if they are adjacent, such that the fat drips from one to the other, they are forbidden even after the fact, as it is stated in perek Keitzad Tzolin (Pesachim 76b)'.
And the Taz3 wrote on the words of the Rema (which will be brought below), who wrote that the prohibition is only where one cooks them together, and these are his words: 'Only when he cooks them together. And the same applies if they were roasted literally as one, one with the other — so it is stated explicitly in the Gemara in perek Keitzad Tzolin, that Mar bar Rav Ashi said it is forbidden even with salt; and the Rashal, perek Gid HaNasheh siman 15, explained according to the Rambam that there it is dealing with a case where they literally roasted fish with meat, and therefore they forbade it on account of danger to life'.
But there are rishonim who wrote that even in a manner in which they were not cooked or roasted together it is forbidden to eat them together, and therefore they wrote that one must wash the hands and the mouth between the meat and the fish. As the Tur wrote in OC4: 'And my master, my father, the Rosh z"l, was accustomed to wash his hands between meat and fish, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition'. And in YD5 he wrote: 'And my master, my father, the Rosh z"l, was accustomed to wash his hands between meat and fish, and he would soak bread in wine and eat it in between, in order to rinse his mouth'.
And so wrote the Kol Bo6 in the name of the Mahara"m of Rothenburg: 'And the Mahara"m washes his hand when he eats meat and wants to eat fish, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition'.
And the Beis Yosef7 wrote: 'And it appears that they learned this from what we read in perek Keitzad Tzolin: that binisa which was roasted together with meat — Rava of Parzikya forbade eating it with kutach; Mar bar Rav Ashi said even with salt it is likewise forbidden, because it is harmful to the scent and [leads] to davar acher. And Rashi explained: "which was roasted together with meat" — in one oven; "to davar acher" — tzora'as'.
However, in the Hagahos Sha'arei Dura8 he wrote regarding the practice of the Rosh, 'I have not seen [people] practicing thus, not even the scrupulous and the modest; rather they perform kinuach of the mouth alone, and hadacha by means of drinking'.
Also in the Leket Yosher9 he wrote: 'And I recall that he did not wash his hands between meat and fish, and I asked Mahara"r Yosef of Colon: the YD writes in the name of the Rosh z"l that he was [that he was] accustomed to wash his hands between meat and fish; and he answered: we do not practice thus, and he wrote a proof ..'.
And as halacha the Mechaber wrote in Shulchan Aruch OC10: 'Between meat and fish it is obligatory to wash, because it is harmful [and leads] to davar acher, and danger is more stringent than a prohibition'. And in YD11 he wrote: 'He should wash his hands between meat and fish and eat soaked bread in between, in order to rinse his mouth'.
But the Rema in his gloss disagreed and wrote: 'And there are those who say that one need not be concerned for this except when he cooks them together and eats them, but to eat them one after the other there is no concern. And so is the practice, not to rinse the mouth nor the hands between them; nevertheless one should eat something in between and drink, for this constitutes kinuach and hadacha'.
In the next halacha we will see how one conducts oneself in practice between the fish and the meat.
Notes:
1 Chullin remez 750 ↩
2 YD siman 116 os 3 ↩
3 YD siman 116 s"k 3 ↩
4 Siman 173 ↩
5 Siman 116 ↩
6 Siman 23 ↩
7 OC siman 173 ↩
8 Siman 77 os 2 ↩
9 Vol. 1 OC page 35 inyan 1 ↩
10 Siman 173 se'if 2 ↩
11 Siman 116 se'if 3 ↩
[4] (Halacha 690)
Question: Regarding the ruling of washing the hands between the meat and the fish, is there a difference in which is eaten first, the meat or the fish?
Answer: In the previous halacha we saw the language of the Tur and the Kol Bo, that the Mahara"m of Rothenburg and the Rosh washed their hands between the meat and the fish; and so it is written in the sefer Tashbetz Katan1 regarding the practice of the Mahara"m: 'He washes his hands when he eats meat and wants to eat fish, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition'.
And there are those who inferred from their language that this ruling applies specifically when one eats meat and afterwards wants to eat fish, and not in the reverse case, as is written in the Otzar Yad HaChaim2: 'I have heard that there are places where they wash the hands specifically between meat and fish, for so is the language in OC siman 173, and so it is in the Tashbetz Katan, and in YD siman 116, and in the responsa of the Mahara"m b'r Boruch z"l'.
But the Issur V'Heter wrote3: 'And הי"ד wrote in the name of the Rosh, that one must be careful not to eat meat and fish together, one after the other, unless with kinuach and hadacha in between, because it is harmful [and leads] to davar acher, and it makes no difference which of them he eats first. And he concludes: and my master, my father, the Rosh z"l, was accustomed to wash his hands, and he would soak bread in wine and eat it in between in order to cleanse his mouth — end of quote'.
And so it is written in the Damesek Eliezer4, brought in the Knesses HaGedolah5: 'And the Tur, OC, further wrote there: and my master, my father, z"l, was accustomed to wash his hands between meat and fish .. And it appears to me that the same applies in the reverse, between fish and meat'.
And so it is written in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch6: 'When one eats fish and afterwards meat, or the reverse, one should eat a little bread in between and drink some beverage, for this constitutes kinuach and hadacha'.
And in the Otzar Yad HaChaim there he wrote that in truth one should not make an inference from the language of the Tur and the Tashbetz: 'But from them there is no proof that in ancient days the practice was to eat the meat and afterwards the fish, for so they composed in the zemiros: meat and fish and all delicacies. But in truth there is no distinction whatsoever, and so I found in the Issur V'Heter, and in the responsa of R' Y. Mintz, and in the Shevet Mussar perek (41) [40]'.
Such a practice of eating meat before fish is mentioned also in the Aruch HaShulchan7: 'And we do not eat fish after meat, only meat after fish, and we have heard that there are places where they eat meat and afterwards fish'.
And as to the reason for our practice of eating the fish before the meat, it is written in the Kaf HaChaim8 that this is based upon the words of the Rambam9: 'He should eat fowl before the meat of an animal, and the meat of a small animal before the meat of a large animal; and likewise he should eat cooked before roasted, and the fish before eating any meat, for the fish are exceedingly warm and digest the food quickly, as is written in the sefer Yalkut Reuveni daf 39b in the name of the Tov HaAretz, for one should always take the light thing first and afterwards the heavy thing; and so it is also written in the sefer Me'il Shmuel קו"מ של"ה ד"ך ע"א; and all of it is from the words of the Rambam in perek 4 of Hilchos De'os. Yafeh LaLev os 2'.
And an inner explanation for the practice was explained by the Alter Rebbe in Likutei Torah10: 'אם את כל דגי הים כו' ("if all the fish of the sea etc."). To understand: they did not ask for fish at all, but for meat. The matter is that Moshe said מאין לי בשר ("from where shall I have meat"). That is, he was on an exceedingly lofty level, such that it was impossible to descend below to receive vitality from meat, for meat is coarse; and therefore an am ha'aretz is forbidden to eat meat, and only a talmid chochom is able to elevate [it] etc. But with regard to the level of Moshe, which is exceedingly lofty, even this ascent would be considered a descent. And this is שש מאות אלף רגלי העם אשר אנכי בקרבו ואתה אמרת בשר אתן להם כו' ("six hundred thousand footmen are the people in whose midst I am, and You have said: I will give them meat etc."), the explanation being: since אנכי — that is, the bechinah of Moshe — is in the midst of the people, how can You say I will give them meat etc. And this is הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם ("shall flocks and herds be slaughtered for them, and suffice for them"), the explanation of ומצא להם being that the flocks and herds will find them and overtake them, by pursuing after them to draw them downward, and they will fall from the level of Moshe etc. And for this he said אם את כל דגי הים כו', for behold, whatever there is on the dry land there is in the sea. And the meat that is in the sea, that is, fish — except that the sea is of alma d'iskasya and the dry land of [alma] d'isgalya. And behold, [regarding] the great descent to the bechinah of alma d'isgalya, to eat the meat of the dry land in order to elevate etc. and not to fall below into materiality, there is a counsel: by means of a descent first to alma d'iskasya — the fish that are in the sea — in which and through which he can afterwards descend further etc., and therefore the minhag of Yisroel is to eat fish before meat'.
And in the Maamarim of the Alter Rebbe11 it is explained: '(And the matter of eating fish before meat etc.). Since the matter of gilgul in fish and in cattle and beasts etc. is known, that the souls of the tzaddikim are in fish etc. — the reason is that the bechinah of פני אריה פני שור ("the face of a lion, the face of an ox") etc. fell in the shevirah, as is known, and their root is higher than the bechinah of adam before the shevirah, as is written לפני מלוך מלך כו' ("before a king reigned etc."); and the gilgul is the matter of the tikkun and the refinement, whereby it is elevated thereby to its root, as is written in the books of the mekubalim. And at first it is reincarnated in fish, since they ascend easily, for they did not fall in the shevirah, and afterwards in the flesh of an ox etc. And therefore they eat fish at the beginning, so that there should be a preparation whereby he will be able to refine and elevate the meat, and without the fish preceding, he would not have had the strength to elevate the meat that fell in the shevirah, whose root is exceedingly lofty etc., and this is enough for the understanding. And this is אם כל דגי הים ימצא להם כו' — that even if they eat fish first, they will not be able to elevate the meat that fell in the shevirah; therefore הצאן ובקר ישחט להם כו', and as is written in the Midrash Rabbah, and this is enough for the understanding. And this is the reason that the souls of the tzaddikim, which did not fall but require elevation alone, are elevated through fish etc.; but the souls of the baalei teshuvah, which require refinement from the fall, having fallen in the shevirah etc., are reincarnated in meat etc., and this is enough for the understanding. And in the time to come the entire matter of their refinement and their elevation will be alluded to in the Leviathan and the Shor HaBar, with which a kenunya will be made etc., and as is written elsewhere, and this is enough for the understanding'.
If so, in practice, for those who are particular to clean the hands between fish and meat, there is no difference whether they ate the meat first or the fish first; in either case one must clean them. And likewise we have seen that the practice at a seudah is to eat the fish before the meat.
In the next halacha we will see what the ruling is in the dispute between the Mechaber and the Rema regarding the cleaning
--------------
Notes:
1 Siman 548 ↩
2 Os 70 ↩
3 Klal 39 se'if 29 ↩
4 On maseches Chullin 311, 1 ↩
5 Hagahos HaTur, YD siman 116 os 19 ↩
6 Siman 33 se'if 2 ↩
7 OC siman 173 se'if 2 ↩
8 Siman 157 s"k 38 ↩
9 Hilchos De'os perek 4 halacha 7 ↩
10 Beha'aloscha 33, 2 ↩
11 5563 vol. 2 p. 690 ↩
[5] (Halacha 691)
Question: How does one conduct oneself in practice with regard to the separation between fish and meat?
Answer: In halacha number 699 we saw the basis of the dispute between the Mechaber and the Rema, for the Mechaber wrote1: 'He should wash his hands between meat and fish and eat soaked bread in between, in order to rinse his mouth'.
And the Rema wrote: 'And there are those who say that one need not be concerned for this except when he cooks them together and eats them, but to eat them one after the other there is no concern2. And so is the practice, not to rinse the mouth nor the hands between them; nevertheless one should eat something in between and drink, for this constitutes kinuach and hadacha'.
Rinsing the hands
As halacha: the minhag of the Sefardim is in accordance with the words of Maran the Mechaber, as the Chida wrote3 that such is the minhag. And so it is written in the Zivchei Tzedek4: 'And so we practice, like Maran z"l, that they wash their hands between meat and fish and eat bread in between, and they are careful in this; and not like the Rema z"l'. And so wrote his student the Ben Ish Chai5: 'And one must rinse his hands and also his mouth between meat and fish or the reverse, and he should eat soaked bread in between'. And so it is written in the Yafeh LaLev (Palagi)6: 'And our practice is to rinse the mouth and the hands, since it cannot but be that the odor of the food clings to them'. And [so too] the Kaf HaChaim7.
And the Pri To'ar wrote8: 'It appears that he must first wipe his hands of the fat of the meat, for the water will not remove the fat of the meat from the hands'.
And he further wrote there: 'And this is specifically l'chatchilah, but after the fact one should not forbid it if he did not wash his hands and took the meat in his hand in a situation in which peeling is not applicable to it, such as where it was very moist, for presumably there will be a measure that nullifies that small amount which stuck to his hand from the fish; for one should not be more stringent in these matters than in other prohibitions. And no proof is needed for this, for it stands to reason that whatever is nullified retains no taste at all'.
And the minhag of the Ashkenazim is to be lenient in accordance with the words of the Rema, as the Mishnah Berurah wrote9: 'And see in YD siman 116 — and there it is explained in the gloss that our practice is that we are not concerned about this, and he concluded that nevertheless one should eat something in between and drink, for this constitutes kinuach and hadacha'. And see also the Aruch HaShulchan10.
However, there are some of the poskim of Ashkenaz who wrote that it is proper to be stringent and to wash the hands in accordance with the opinion of the Mechaber, and the first of them is the Maharsha"l11: 'And with regard to washing between meat and fish, or the reverse, these are the words of the Tur, YD: and one must be careful not to eat meat and fish together, for it is harmful [and leads] to tzora'as; and there are those who are stringent in the matter, to designate utensils for fish alone; and my master, my father, the Rosh z"l, was accustomed to wash [his hands] between meat and fish, and he would soak bread in wine and eat it in between, in order to rinse his mouth. And these are the words of the Mahara"i in his Sha'arim (Hagahos Sha'arei Dura siman 77): I have not seen [people] practicing thus, not even the scrupulous and the modest; rather they perform kinuach of the mouth alone, and hadacha by means of drinking — end of quote. And I do not know why we should not be concerned that perhaps some of the meat that is on his hands sticks and becomes mixed with the fish, and likewise the reverse; just as they were concerned between a cheese dish and meat'.
And so several of the poskim mentioned in practice, as is written in the Yeshuos Chochmah12: 'And nevertheless, since our eyes see that the hands are very dirty after eating fish, therefore one should conduct oneself in accordance with the opinion of the Mechaber .. and wash his hands somewhat in between; and so the meticulous practice. And so it is written in the Shvus Yaakov and in the Birkei Yosef'.
Where he did not touch [it] directly with his hands
The Pri To'ar wrote there: 'And if he was careful in his eating to eat only with three fingers, it suffices to wipe his fingers on a cloth that is fit for wiping, and washing is then not required; for this washing is not a fixed statute, but only so that he should not eat them together, and in any situation in which we see that nothing is stuck to him it is permitted, and we are witnesses that wiping is more effective than washing'.
And there are those who wrote13 that according to this, when one is particular to eat with cutlery, such that his hands do not touch the fish at all, there is no need to rinse his hands.
An interruption by drinking
In addition to the rinsing of the mouth according to the Mechaber, or the drinking for the purpose of rinsing that the Rema mentioned, we find in the words of the Shelah HaKadosh a further practice that has been brought in the poskim: that beyond the need to clean the mouth, it is proper to be scrupulous to drink something between the fish and the meat, so that there should be a separation in the stomach as well, as the Shelah wrote14, brought in the Ben Ish Chai there: 'And it is also good to interpose between them with a beverage that he drinks, so that they should not touch one another in the stomach, which is like cooking'15.
And in the Darkei Teshuvah16 he wrote: 'And thus I have seen of the elder rabbonim, that they were careful to wash their hands between fish and meat; but with regard to rinsing the mouth I have seen many who are lenient and rely on the Rema, that it suffices with his drinking some beverage and kinuach of the mouth with bread in between'.
And in the Darkei Chaim V'Shalom17 it is brought: 'And he did not eat them by means of a spoon .. but only with his fingers, and he said the allusion, that it is stated וכל דגי הים 'בידכם' נתנו ("and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given") — to eat specifically with the hands and not by means of anything else .. After eating the fish he would pour a little water over his hands .. And it was also his way to remove the teeth that are set in the mouth .. and he would rinse them and wipe them and put them back before eating meat and the gravy. And he would also taste a little yayin saraf after eating the fish, and he said (in the name of tzaddikim) that after eating fish one should drink yayin saraf immediately, and with it one forms the combination of the Name שד"י, just as one joins, after the conclusion of the Shirah, ושמו אחד ("and His Name is One") — Yishtabach; and therefore one should not wash his hands as is customary after eating fish, but only after drinking the yayin saraf, so that the washing should not be an interruption within the combination of the Name'.
And so too we find this particular care by our Rebbeim, the Nesi'im: with regard to the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab18 it is brought in a ר"ד from the seudos of the night of Chag HaShavuos 5726 that the Rebbe inquired of the Rav A. Z. Slonim, who was in Lubavitch for eight years, about the conduct of the Rebbe Rashab; and among the things mentioned was his practice that after eating fish he would drink a cup of wine (almost a full one) and say 'l'chaim', and afterwards he would drink a little water, and pour a little water over his hands and wipe his lips.
And so it is also brought with regard to the conduct of the Rebbe19, that he interposed between the fish and the meat by saying l'chaim over wine, and rinsing his holy hands with a little water.
--
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 116 se'if 3 ↩
2 In the Darkei Teshuvah siman 116 s"k 30 he wrote: 'See in Shu"t She'ilas Shalom Tinyana siman 165 what he wrote in explanation of the words of the Rema in this, and he wrote that at first glance the language is not understood, for according to the view of these 'some say', even to eat them together without cooking there is no danger — only when he cooks them together and eats them is there danger, whereas when they became mixed without cooking there is no danger. And he wrote that perforce the intention of the Rema in this is that although to eat them together without cooking there is no danger, nevertheless one should forbid it on account of a decree, lest he come to eat them when they are cooked together; therefore one should not permit other than eating them one after the other, but washing the hands is not required at all, for there is no danger in them — see there' ↩
3 Shiyurei Bracha s"k 8 ↩
4 Siman 116 s"k 18 ↩
5 Shanah Sheniyah, parshas Pinchas se'if 8 ↩
6 Vol. 3 os 5 ↩
7 OC siman 173 s"k 4, and YD siman 116 s"k 27 ↩
8 S"k 4 ↩
9 Siman 173 s"k 4 ↩
10 Siman 33 se'if 2 ↩
11 YD siman 116 se'if 10 ↩
12 Yam Shel Shlomo, Chullin perek 8 siman 9 ↩
13 See Shu"t Avnei Yashfeh vol. 4 siman 87 anaf 4. Mishmeres HaBayis, Hilchos basar b'cholov perek 3 note 16. Hora'ah Berurah s"k 11 ↩
14 Sha'ar HaOsios, os hakuf - kedushas ha'achilah (os 211) ↩
15 And he wrote in Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 6 siman 111 os 4: 'And it is tried and tested that this is beneficial as a remedy; and there are many who cannot tolerate eating meat after fish at all. And we also practice washing the hands between one and the other' ↩
16 There s"k 32 ↩
17 Siman 395 - 6 ↩
18 Toras Menachem vol. 47 p. 4 ↩
19 See Maaseh Melech, Shabbos U'Moed perek 2 p. 133 os 42. Orchos Menachem p. 44 ↩
[6] (Halacha 692)
Question: Is there a danger in meat and fish that were salted together?
Answer: The Issur V'Heter HaAruch wrote1, and it is brought in the Toras Chatas2: 'Fish that were salted with fowl are not to be forbidden on account of danger, for there is no danger in salting'.
And the Shach wrote3: 'And there is also a practical difference, for example in a case where there is no prohibition of blood, such as where they remained for the measure of salting and were rinsed and then were salted together again, and the like; and see further, at the beginning of siman 116'.
And so wrote the Taz4: 'And the reason the fish are not forbidden on account of danger, having been salted with meat and being harmful [and leading] to davar acher, is that there is no danger in salting, as is written in siman 116 se'if 3'. And so it is written in Shu"t Chut HaShani5. And in the She'eris Yehudah6.
Except that the Pri Megadim wrote7 that this ruling applies only after the fact and not l'chatchilah, and these are his words: 'He further brought in the name of the Issur V'Heter etc. And it is forced to say that here he permits salting them together l'chatchilah, for it does not appear so'.
But the gaon R' Shlomo Kluger8 disagreed with this entire ruling, and wrote that there is danger in salting as well, and these are his words: 'And behold, what he [= the Taz] wrote, "as is written in siman 116 se'if 3", proves nothing. And it is true that it is not mentioned there to forbid in salting; but neither is a permission mentioned there, and on the contrary it appears [otherwise], since there are those who forbid there even in a case of reicha milsa — and reicha milsa is certainly lighter than salting, for even with regard to a prohibition there is an opinion in Shas that reicha lav milsa, whereas with salting he certainly concedes that it is forbidden. If so, reicha is lighter than salting, and if it is forbidden in a case of reicha, all the more so in salting. And if so, even those who permit after the fact in a case of reicha — nevertheless it appears that with salting they concede, for it is preferable to minimize disputes. And furthermore, there is an explicit Shas in perek Keitzad Tzolin, that Mar bar Rav bar Ashi forbade even with salt, and the Taz himself brought it in siman 116; and if so, from where do we have license to be lenient against it, and particularly in a matter of danger. .. However, even according to the reasoning of the Taz it appears that with brine of meat that fell upon fish, or brine of fish upon meat, this is worse than salting, and it would appear to forbid it even according to him, as is proven here in this siman, that brine is worse than salting. And as to the ruling, even with salting one should forbid it, particularly in a place of danger, and so I have ruled halacha l'maaseh, with the help of Hashem'.
However, the acharonim rejected his words and agreed as to the ruling that there is no danger in salting, as the Darkei Teshuvah wrote9: 'But I am astonished at a gaon such as he, who wrote to take issue with the Taz, and to whom it appeared that the Taz derived this leniency from his own reasoning, whereas in truth it is from the Issur V'Heter klal 13, and the Shach brought it in s"k 16 as the ruling; and we have nothing but the words of the rishonim. And particularly since the Magen Avraham wrote in OC siman 173 s"k 1 that at present the natures have changed with regard to the danger of fish and meat together; and although in Shu"t Shvus Yaakov vol. 3 siman 70 he wrote that one may not rely on the Magen Avraham in this, nevertheless he too was lenient there in joining the words of the Magen Avraham as a supporting factor — see there. Therefore it is simple, in my humble opinion, that one should not be stringent in this at all. And see the Yad Yehudah, in the Peirush HaAruch s"k 10 and in the Peirush HaKatzar s"k 18, who wrote that even if actual brine of meat that comes out by means of salting was absorbed into the fish, or brine as above of fish into meat, it is permitted, for there is no danger in it at all — see there ..'. And he repeated his words10: 'However, see in the sefer Mishmeres Shalom, in the Chidushei Dinim at the end of siman 108, who brought him [= Harav Sh. Kluger] and took issue with him and rejected all his words, and concluded that the essential ruling is to be lenient, as our masters the Taz and the Shach wrote — see there ..'.
If so, in practice there is no danger with meat and fish in salting; however, one should not do so l'chatchilah.
★ ★ ★
Question: If they were salted together, is it permitted to cook them [each one on its own] afterwards?
Answer: The Pri Megadim wrote there, and it is brought in the Hagahos Rabbi Akiva Eiger11: 'And nevertheless it requires examination whether he means to eat them thus, or that he may cook them afterwards; and it requires study: if he cooks them, it will impart taste by way of cooking, and they were already absorbed at first by means of salting — and perhaps a distinction can be made'.
But the Darkei Teshuvah wrote12: 'And see in the Arugas HaBosem os 2, who wrote that since there is no danger in taste that comes out by means of salting, it follows automatically that even if he cooks them afterwards there is nothing in it — see there. And see the Yad Yehudah there, who wrote that this is simple, that even to cook them afterwards is permitted; only that one must investigate what the ruling is if he actually cooked them in the brine that comes out by means of salting. For, as it appears, the reason there is no danger in salting is that there is danger specifically where they receive the substance of the taste one from the other, and therefore it is forbidden only with taste that comes out by way of cooking and roasting, whereas when it comes out by means of salting, where the substance of the taste does not come out, it is not forbidden; and according to this it follows automatically that there is no concern even if he cooks it afterwards. And as to the ruling he wrote that in any case one should not be stringent, for one may rely on the Magen Avraham mentioned above, that at present the natures have changed with regard to the danger of fish and meat together, and one may be lenient in this and should not be stringent — see there'. And he further wrote13: 'And see the Yad Yehudah in the Peirush HaAruch, above, siman 70 s"k 10, who permitted cooking them afterwards, for there is danger specifically where they receive the substance of the taste one from the other, whereas with salting, where the substance of the taste does not come out from one to the other, there is no danger if he cooks them afterwards — see there. And the sefer Mishmeres Shalom [siman 70] brought it, in the Siftei Da'as there, and he also brought from the words of the Rav Admas Kodesh in a responsum, that he too holds like him in this — see there'.
And so wrote the Zivchei Tzedek14: 'And it is implied from the unqualified language of the poskim that he may also cook the fish afterwards; and the gaon of the Siftei Da'as there was in doubt about this, that perhaps the fact that they are permitted means to eat them thus and not to cook them. And the sages of the yeshiva hy"v agreed that it is permitted to cook them, and it is possible that this too is the conclusion of the Siftei Da'as — see there'.
And it is written in the Kaf HaChaim15: 'And so it stands to reason, for how is it possible to eat them without cooking? If so, the permission has fallen into a pit. And if you say that it is possible to eat it in its salt — that is only with difficulty, and moreover it is not common; and all this he would have needed to explain'.
If so, in practice it is permitted to cook meat and fish each one on its own, even if they were salted together.
-----
Notes:
1 5Siman 70 s"k 12 ↩
2 Klal 20 din 15 ↩
3 YD siman 70 s"k 16 ↩
4 YD siman 70 s"k 3 ↩
5 Siman 67 ↩
6 YD siman 70 s"k 24 ↩
7 Siftei Da'as siman 70 s"k 16 ↩
8 In the glosses on Shulchan Aruch YD siman 70 ↩
9 Siman 70 s"k 10 ↩
10 Siman 116 s"k 29 ↩
11 YD siman 116 se'if 3 ↩
12 Siman 70 there ↩
13 Siman 116 there ↩
14 Siman 70 os 10 ↩
[7] (Halacha 693)
Question: Is there a danger in meat and fish that were pickled together?
Answer: The Minchas Yaakov wrote1, and the Pri Megadim brought it2: 'That there is no danger in salting, but only in cooking, as the Rav wrote below, klal 763; and with regard to pickling it requires study'.
And moreover the Mekor Boruch (by Harav Boruch Bendet Vizel)4 wrote to be stringent: 'But with cooking, of which they say that there is danger — and pickling is like cooking — it is certainly proper to be careful, and one who is scrupulous will be stringent'.
On the other hand, in the Pischei Teshuvah5 he wrote: 'See the Pri Megadim .. who brought that the Minchas Yaakov, klal 20, left it requiring study, in a case where meat was pickled with fish for a full twenty-four hours, whether it is a danger — see there. And see in the sefer Beis Yehuda (Landa, beginning of siman 70), who brought a proof that even with pickling there is no danger — see there'.
And the Darkei Teshuvah wrote6: 'See the Arugas HaBosem, who likewise wrote to permit in a case of pickling, that there is no danger in pickling — see there. And see the Yad Yehudah in the Peirush HaKatzar s"k 18, who wrote that all that the Minchas Yaakov was in doubt about — whether the matter of danger applies to pickling — is specifically with pickling for a full twenty-four hours; but with pickling for [the time needed] to put it on the fire and bring it to a boil, one should not be stringent at all, according to all opinions — see there'. And he further wrote7: 'And see in the sefer Mishmeres Shalom, above, siman 105, in the Chidushei Dinim at the end of the siman, os 19, what he wrote in this; and he wrote that in any event, in a doubt as to whether a fish was pickled with meat for a full twenty-four hours, one may be lenient on account of a sfek sfeika. For although the Pri Megadim left it requiring study whether a sfek sfeika avails in a matter of danger .. nevertheless in such a case, in a doubt about pickling, the Pri Megadim too concedes that a sfek sfeika avails, since it is a doubt whether it is a danger at all — see there'.
If so, with regard to pickling the poskim have inclined to be lenient8, and particularly where there are further grounds for leniency.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is the prohibition of eating meat and fish specifically with the meat of an animal, or with fowl as well?
Answer: In halacha number 691 the Issur V'Heter HaAruch was brought9, who wrote: 'Fish that were salted with fowl are not to be forbidden on account of danger, for there is no danger in salting'.
The acharonim inferred from his words that the danger of meat and fish is not only with meat, but with fowl as well; and therefore the Issur V'Heter wrote that the permission is because it was only salted — implying that had it been cooked it would have been forbidden to eat. As the Shvus Yaakov wrote10 with regard to goose fat that became mixed with a dish of fish: 'Regarding that which he was in doubt about, whether there is a concern of danger with fowl and fish — I do not know what he is in doubt about. For they said without qualification, "this binisa that was roasted together with meat, it is forbidden to eat it on account of danger" — the meat of fowl is also included; and is there a remedy for danger? And all the poskim, rishonim and acharonim — not one of them mentioned this distinction. And so it appears to me to be proven explicitly that there is no distinction, from what the Mordechai wrote in perek 25, and in the Issur V'Heter klal 13, regarding fish that were salted with fowl, that they are not to be forbidden on account of danger, for there is no danger in salting — end of quote11. And so it is written in the Toras Chatas klal 20 din 15, and in the Taz and in the Shach in YD siman 40. And if it were so, that there is no danger with fowl together with fish, then even cooking them together would not be forbidden; rather, certainly fowl and animals are equal with regard to the prohibition of danger with fish12'. And so it is written in the Mishcha D'Revusa12. And the Aruch HaShulchan13.
And with regard to whether one should distinguish between the meat of fowl itself and its fat, it is written in the Otzar Yad HaChaim (Babad)14: 'With regard to whether fat with fish is a danger, see the Pri Megadim, OC siman 176, in the name of the Levush, to be lenient; and the Pri Megadim is stringent. And I found in the Pardes siman 247, and in the sefer HaOrah of Rashi, p. 136 siman 110, that one may be lenient with goose fat'.
And so it is written in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch15: 'It is forbidden to eat fish with meat, and even with the fat of fowl, because of the danger'.
If so, we have seen that fowl, and even the fat of fowl, is equal to the meat of an animal in this ruling, and it may not be eaten with fish.
Washing between fowl and fish
Except that in Shu"t Beis Yehuda16 he wrote: 'With regard to washing the hands between meat and fish, it appears that one should not be stringent with the meat of fowl, since unqualified "meat" everywhere refers to the meat of an animal — for example, with regard to the rejoicing of the festival, and with regard to a ben sorer u'moreh, and in the ruling of Tisha B'Av; and see the beginning of perek Kol HaBasar, and in Hilchos Nedarim siman 217 — for otherwise the poskim should not have written "meat" without qualification. And further, since there is a dispute regarding the washing itself, it is enough for us that we be stringent with the meat of an animal. And further, I have heard people say a reason in logic: since fowl were created from the marsh, they are close in their taste to fish; and further, that they have scales on their feet like fish, as it is stated in perek HaShocheit. And although from the Pri Chodosh siman 70 s"k 16 it is implied that there is no distinction between an animal and fowl in this matter, nevertheless one should not protest against those who practice leniently. And further, that it is possible that he came to exclude only roasting and cooking, whose prohibition is agreed upon. And so the world has practiced, to be lenient in this'.
And from his words it is understood that one should distinguish between the meat of an animal and fowl, and in any event one may be lenient with regard to washing the hands between fowl and fish17.
But in practice the Chida wrote18: '"He should wash his hands between meat and fish" etc. One should not be stringent with the meat of fowl [and] fish, and one should not protest against those who are lenient. The Rav Mahari Ayash, in Shu"t Beis Yehuda YD siman 24. But the Rav Shvus Yaakov, vol. 2 siman 104, required washing the hands between fowl and fish — see there; and such is our minhag'.
--------------
Notes:
1 Klal 20 s"k 27 ↩
2 YD Siftei Da'as siman 70 s"k 16 ↩
3 Din 11. 4siman 5 ↩
4 YD siman 70 s"k 1 ↩
5 Siman 70 s"k 10 ↩
6 Siman 116 s"k 29 ↩
7 And see Shu"t Yabia Omer vol. 4 YD siman 4. Shulchan Aruch YD with Hora'ah Berurah os 8. Piskim U'Teshuvos siman 116 os 6 ↩
8 Klal 13 din 2 ↩
9 Shu"t vol. 2 siman 104 ↩
10 In Shu"t Yabia Omer vol. 4 YD siman 4 he noted: 'And it is true that in the chidushim of the Ritva, Chullin 112b, he wrote: and nevertheless, fish that were roasted with fowl are permitted, for whatever is by means of fire — as it absorbs, so it expels. End of quote. And it is proven that he holds that with fowl there is no need for concern on account of danger .. It appears that as to the ruling we take like the acharonim mentioned above .. Or alternatively, that the Ritva too is dealing only with the law of the prohibition of blood, and is not dealing with the matter of danger' ↩
11 And it requires study, what is written in Shu"t Chelkas Yaakov YD siman 20: 'And behold, the question was about the meat of fowl, and one may join the view of the Shvus Yaakov, that with fowl — which were created only from the marsh — danger does not apply to eating them with fish; and also the opinion of the Magen Avraham in siman 173 is well known, that in these times the natures have changed and danger does not apply; and it was also for the need of Shabbos, for 'שומר מצוה לא ידע דבר רע' ("one who keeps a mitzvah will know no evil"); see OC siman 455 with regard to mayim shelanu at the time of the tekufah. And even so, my heart did not allow me to be lenient' ↩
12 72a ↩
13 YD siman 116 se'if 10 ↩
14 Os 1135 ↩
15 Siman 33 se'if 1 ↩
16 Chelek YD siman 24 ↩
17 But see in the Darkei Teshuvah siman 116 s"k 25: 'And he wrote that nevertheless, with regard to washing the hands between the meat of fowl and fish, one should not be stringent, and one should not protest against those who practice leniently; and he concluded: and so the world has practiced, to be lenient in this — see there'. And it requires study from the Yad Efraim, YD siman 116 se'if 6: 'He wrote in Shu"t Beis Yehuda siman 24 that they wash their hands between the meat of fowl and fish' ↩
18 Shiyurei Bracha YD siman 116 s"k 8 ↩
[8] (Halacha 694)
Question: Is it permitted for meat and fish to be on the table at the same time during the seudah?
Answer: The Noda BiYehudah wrote1: 'And as for what was written, that they did not decree with regard to meat and fish [a prohibition of] placing them on the table on account of eating — there it is different, for the danger is to the one who eats it himself, and since danger is stringent he will be careful of himself not to eat it'2.
On the other hand, the Kehal Yehudah wrote3: 'That it is forbidden to place fish upon a table on which there is meat, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition…' but at the end of his words he concludes 'However, this may be refuted, and examine it well'.
And similarly there are those who wrote that there is room to say that since danger is more stringent than a prohibition, therefore even where there is a separation for a distinguishing mark (in which case one would permit it with meat and milk), nevertheless with meat and fish, which is a matter of danger, one should forbid it; and so the Shem Chodosh wrote4: 'Or alternatively, to the other side, that a separation for a distinguishing mark does not suffice here, since it is on account of its being harmful for davar acher, it is more stringent', except that in the continuation of his words he proves that we do not say in this matter that danger is more stringent than a prohibition, and on the contrary: 'it may be inferred that even a separation for a distinguishing mark is not required, and there is reason to be lenient with fish and meat more than with meat and milk, since there is a permission and a remedy to eat meat after fish or the reverse, by washing his hands and by wiping the mouth and rinsing .. and since it is their way to do so, to rinse his mouth, we do not decree lest they eat without wiping and rinsing, and it is permitted l'chatchilah even without a separation for a distinguishing mark, as appears to me at present, for I have not found a clear ruling in the poskim, and the matter requires further study in my view'.
Also in the Kaf HaChaim in OC5 he wrote to be lenient, but he was stringent in the case of a single person, and these are his words: 'One may be in doubt whether two people who are acquainted with one another, eating at one table, this one meat and this one fish, are required to make a separation of a cloth for a distinguishing mark, as is written in YD siman 88 se'if 2 regarding meat and cheese, or whether it is not required; and it stands to reason that a separation of a cloth is not required, since it is not forbidden min haTorah. The Rav, the Shem Chodosh, newly printed, on Sefer Yere'im .. and the Pesach HaDvir brought him, os 1, and it was obvious to him that a separation of a cloth is not required; see there. And so it is written in the sefer Zivchei Tzedek siman 116 os 25, that it is not required; see there. However, it is implied that in the case of a single person who sits to eat alone there is cause for concern, and one should not leave them together on the table, lest he come to eat without washing hands and wiping the mouth'.
[But to note that in YD he inclined to be stringent, and wrote6: 'Two people who are acquainted with one another who eat at one table, this one meat and this one fish — whether they are required to make a separation of a cloth, as is written above in siman 88 se'if 2 regarding meat and milk: see the Shem Chodosh on Sefer HaYere'im .. who was in doubt about this and brought proofs to be lenient, and concluded that he still remains in doubt; see there. However, the proofs he brought to be lenient may be refuted, for it is not comparable, since here we are concerned lest he forget and eat without awareness, being preoccupied with his eating; and therefore it appears that one should be stringent and make a separation for a distinguishing mark, and there is no loss in this'.]
And in practice the poskim adopted the lenient view in this, and so Shu"t Shevet HaLevi wrote7: 'It is a simple matter that one need not be concerned for what is written in Darkei Teshuvah .. in the name of the sefer Kehal Yehudah, that it is forbidden to place fish together with meat on one table; and so all the generations were lenient in this. But it is customary, not from the letter of the law, to bring them one after the other as a stringency'.
And so it is written in Shu"t Yabia Omer8: 'And so I have found here in Shu"t Moshe HaIsh (YD siman 10), that the Rav Hagaon R' Tzvi Rinkovitz wrote to the Rav, the author, a proof from the Mishnah at the beginning of perek Kol HaBasar to permit the placing of meat and fish [on one table], just as fish and milk, which are forbidden on account of danger, are permitted in placing; and perforce the reason is that since danger is more stringent than a prohibition, people are exceedingly careful. And the Rav, the author (there, siman 11), went out, examined and found the words of the Rabbanim Shem Chodosh and Kehal Yehudah and Yad Dovid mentioned above. And he concludes that there is no prohibition at all in placing meat and fish upon the table, and he brought the words of the Chasam Sofer mentioned above, and wrote that accordingly there is no doubt at all in this, and so is the practice of the people, to permit the placing of meat and fish on one table. And there is none who is concerned about this to be stringent. See there. And so we adopt for halacha l'ma'aseh, to permit the placing of meat and fish on one table'.
Accordingly, we have seen that from the letter of the law it is permitted to serve fish and meat on one table, (however, where it is not recognizable that one of them is fish or meat, one should note this next to the food, so that they should not come to eat them together)9, but there are those who were accustomed not to bring them together to the table.
Notes:
1 Shu"t Mahadura Kama EH siman 13 ↩
2 And see similarly in Shu"t Vayaan Yosef OC siman 113 3: 'And that which you asked, why they did not forbid, with fish together with meat, the placing on the table on account of eating — in my humble opinion it is precisely the reverse: since it is a danger, which is more stringent even in people's eyes than a prohibition, we are not concerned that he will forget and eat them together; for after Chazal made known that it is a danger also to the body, not only to the soul like a matter of prohibition, people are more careful of them. And offhand I do not recall whether we have found that Chazal decreed any decrees concerning that which is forbidden on account of danger' ↩
3 End of siman 88; brought in Darkei Teshuvah siman 116 s"k 13 ↩
4 Vol. 2 p. 48 ↩
5 OC siman 173 s"k 6 ↩
6 Siman 116 s"k 35 ↩
7 Vol. 6 siman 111 os 3 1 ↩
8 Vol. 6 YD siman 9. * ↩
9 It is important to emphasise that the discussion is where those eating know of and are careful about the prohibition of eating fish with meat; but in a place where the guests do not know of this prohibition, one should not serve meat together with fish on one table.* ↩
[9] (Halacha 695)
Question: With meat and fish that became mixed and were forbidden on account of danger, does the law of nullification in sixty apply?
Answer: In this matter our Rishonim already disagreed, as follows:
It is written in the sefer Leket Yosher1: 'One time a piece of fish was found in a cooked dish of meat, and there was more than sixty against the fish, and he did not wish to permit it, and he said: danger is more stringent than a prohibition. And so my kinsman, the distinguished Mahara"r Moshe Minz ס"ל יצ"ו, had already ruled for me that it was forbidden, when I found fat in water in which fish that are called herring are soaked, and the water was more than sixty'.
On the other hand, the Issur v'Heter HaAroch2 wrote: 'And it is written in the Mordechai, in the Or Zarua on Avodah Zarah, perek Ein Ma'amidin: and a thing which has in it a matter of danger, its law is like a prohibition, to nullify it in sixty, and it is more stringent, in that even dry with its own kind it requires sixty — end of quote. And all the more so a piece of meat that fell into a cauldron in which there is fish, or the reverse, where there is danger of davar acher, that it requires sixty against it'.
The Rema in Darkei Moshe3 brought the words of the Issur v'Heter and raised a difficulty against him: 'And it is a puzzling matter, for we are concerned for uncovering even with forty se'ah of water, and it is impossible that there not be sixty even if snakes drank from it'.
The Taz4 also agreed with the Rema, and wrote that so too the Mahari"l held: 'And so it is written in the Mahari"l, that a bladder from a fish which fell into a pot of meat and was cooked there, and Mahar"i Segal forbade all of it on account of danger — end of quote. It is implied5 that sixty is not effective, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition'.
And so ruled the Gaon R' Chaim Palagi6: 'But with meat and fish that became mixed, we come to a dispute .. and since danger is more stringent, it appears to my limited understanding to forbid; and so the Minchas Yaakov agreed, and even though he retracted in Shvus Yaakov, vol. 2 siman 104, in my humble opinion it appears that one should be stringent'7.
But many Acharonim differed with the Rema and the Taz, and so the author of the Tosfos Yom Tov wrote in Toras HaAsham8 on the Rema: '.. therefore one may rely on the words of the Issur v'Heter HaAroch, who wrote so in the name of the Or Zarua and the Mordechai. All the more so, since it is also possible to distinguish between the venom of a snake and other matters of danger. And in any case I do not say that things which have danger in them are nullified, except by cooking, or in a liquid where everything becomes mixed. But dry in dry, it appears to me that one may not rely on the Issur v'Heter HaAroch9, and even if there is sixty against it, it is not nullified, for what nullification is applicable when the substance of the thing remains intact. And with prohibitions, that one is nullified in two, it is from a gezeiras hakasuv, as at the beginning of klal 39. And even wet in wet, wherever it is not by way of cooking, one should be stringent. And even in pickling one should be stringent; see klal 3 [din 1]'.
The Shach in Nekudos HaKesef10 also differed with the Taz, and wrote: 'And to me it appears that there is no difficulty at all, for the venom of a snake is different, for it burns exceedingly. And in the Mahari"l too it may be said that there was not sixty. And so it appears that we are not more stringent with danger than with a prohibition except in a case of doubt; but where there is sixty, so that it is certainly nullified, it is not reasonable at all to distinguish between a prohibition and danger. And so it is written in the sefer [Pnei Yitzchok] Apei Ravrevei, daf 47b [shaar 54 din 5], that a thing which has danger in it, such as fish and meat, whether wet or dry, is nullified in sixty — end of quote'.
And in Shu"t Chut HaShani11 he wrote: 'That which the Issur v'Heter HaAroch ruled explicitly in klal 23 regarding a mixture of fish and meat, that they are nullified in sixty — if so, whence should we depart from his words and say that it is not nullified in sixty? For even though danger is more stringent than a prohibition, once the taste is gone, the danger is gone .. and with this is resolved that which was raised as a difficulty in Darkei Moshe against the ruling of the Issur v'Heter, as is brought in the Taz siman 116 se'if 2. But a thing which is not venom, even though it is a danger, it appears simple that it is nullified in sixty, like other prohibitions whose taste is lost in sixty, for you have nothing that imparts taste more than onion and leek, and the Rabbanan measured it at sixty. And that which support is drawn in Darkei Moshe from what the Mahari"l ruled concerning a bladder of a fish that fell into a pot of meat, and he forbade the entire pot — it is not a compelling proof, for it is possible that there was not sixty there; and we see that the Maharsha"l was more lenient, and wrote that there is no prohibition with meat and fish except when they are eaten together. And in any case the halacha has already spread like the view of the Issur v'Heter, and so I have heard them ruling'.
And so the Pri Chodosh wrote12: 'It stands to reason to me that a piece of meat that fell into a cauldron of fish, or the reverse, wherever there is sixty to nullify its emission, or its substance if it dissolved — there is no taste here, to forbid on account of danger, and as for reicha too, in such a case it is certainly implied that it is permitted'.
And so the Shu"t Shvus Yaakov wrote13: 'If there is sixty, it is certainly to be declared permitted, as I wrote in my sefer Minchas Yaakov klal 76 s"k 25; except that I left it there in a state of unresolved difficulty, that the matter is hard to permit. Nevertheless, the Pri Chodosh was subsequently printed, who also ruled to be lenient, and so it is written in the responsum of Chavos Yair siman 64 — further, one should not be stringent at all'.
And so the Pri Megadim ruled14: 'And with regard to taste, see YD 107 in the Shach, and in Rashi, Chullin 97a, d"h כלכית: an unkosher fish in a stewpan of meat .. we also learn from this that with danger too it is nullified in sixty'.
And so too many more Acharonim ruled15 that nullification in sixty is effective.
Accordingly, in practice, even with the danger of meat and fish we apply the law of nullification in sixty; but if the discussion is of a mixture of dry in dry, there are Acharonim who were stringent16.
Notes:
1 YD, Hilchos Basar B'Cholov os 19 p. 6 ↩
2 Shaar 23 siman 7 ↩
3 YD siman 116 os 2 ↩
4 YD siman 116 s"k 2 ↩
5 See Nishmas Kol Chai in the following note ↩
6 Nishmas Kol Chai siman 39 ↩
7 And so ruled Harav S. Kluger in Shu"t Tuv Ta'am VaDa'as, Mahadura Telisai 2 siman 10; but in his glosses on the Shulchan Aruch he decided like the Shach, and this requires examination ↩
8 Klal 76-77 din 11 ↩
9 And see in Orach Meishor (siman 116 s"k 2). And so it is written in Shaarei Simcha (shaar 3 siman 20); Darkei Teshuvah siman 116 s"k 21 ↩
10 Os 1 ↩
11 Siman 67 ↩
12 YD siman 116 s"k 4 ↩
13 Vol. 2 siman 104 ↩
14 OC, Mishbetzos Zahav siman 513 s"k 2 ↩
15 See the references in Shmiras HaGuf V'HaNefesh vol. 1 siman 1 note 5 ↩
16 And according to the view of Toras HaAsham as above, they are lenient only where it is by way of cooking, and it is forbidden even in pickling ↩
[10] (Halacha 696)
We learned in the previous halacha that if meat fell into fish or the reverse, the laws of nullification in sixty apply to it
Question: What is the law in a case where we have a doubt whether there was sixty?
Answer: It is written in Shu"t Beis Yehudah (Ayash)1: 'And so it appears simple, that if the cauldron of fish spilled and it is not known whether there is sixty there, we go according to the stringent view, for it is like a kind with what is not of its kind, and where it spilled we have established that it is forbidden, for it is a doubt in a Torah matter, and stringently2 — and this is simple'. And several of the Acharonim brought it as halacha3.
And so the Avnei Nezer wrote4: 'A frying pan of fish and two pots of meat standing together beside the fire, and the frying pan boiled over and water fell from within it into one pot of meat, and it was not known whether there is sixty in the pot of meat .. the matter is simple, to forbid, for a doubt of danger is [resolved] stringently'.
But there are Acharonim who wrote to be lenient, as is written in Shu"t Daas Kohen5: 'And now, that which [=the Beis Yehudah] held simply, that this is a doubt in a Torah matter, may be refuted, and one may distinguish in this and say that it is specifically with regard to those things which are forbidden on account of danger without further specification — that is, where Razal did not explain what the danger is — that in this one may say that it is forbidden min haTorah. However, with regard to those things where Chazal explained to us what their danger is, as with meat and fish, because it is harmful for reicha and for davar acher .. their prohibition is only mid'rabbanan .. and if so, with regard to meat and fish, where the danger is only because it is harmful for reicha and for davar acher — that is, that his body will sicken and weaken, and there is in this no matter of sakanas nefashos — it may be said that mid'oraisa there is no prohibition if it causes some illness to his body, but rather that Chazal forbade it. And if so, if there is a doubt whether it was nullified in sixty as above, it is only a doubt in a rabbinic matter, and leniently ..'.
And so it is written in Shu"t Yabia Omer6, and he explained: 'And now there is room to discuss, that one who eats meat and fish together, which harms himself, transgresses a prohibition min haTorah, like the law of anyone who wounds himself, for the Rashba and the Ran held that its prohibition is min haTorah. (And the Meiri is a lone opinion against them.) And so the Acharonim wrote for the halacha. However, this may be refuted: that when he does not intend to harm himself but only for his enjoyment, there is in this no prohibition min haTorah .. and there is room to infer so from the words of our master the Shulchan Aruch in CM (siman 427 se'if 9): many things the Chachomim forbade because there is in them sakanas nefashos, and as is written in YD (siman 116) .. see there'.
On the other hand, there are those who wrote to be lenient only where there is a loss, or where it is for the honour of Shabbos, as the Divrei Malkiel wrote7: 'But as in our case, where a piece of fish fell into a pot of meat and they removed it from the pot, in which there is a doubt whether there is sixty against the taste that came out of the fish; and there is also in this a loss and a withholding of the honour of Shabbos — certainly one may rely upon the Rif and the Rambam and Rashi, who did not hold that fish with meat is forbidden; and upon the Magen Avraham and the other Acharonim, who wrote that in our times there is no concern of illness in this, for the natures have changed .. and likewise upon the reasoning of the Be'er Sheva, that only in Bavel is there a concern of illness in this, or that only with the species of beinisa is there danger and not with other species. And the Chasam Sofer there agreed with this reasoning .. and for this it is simple that one may be lenient where the honour of Shabbos would be withheld'. And so it was ruled in practice in Shevet HaLevi8.
★ ★ ★
Question: In a case where meat fell into fish or the reverse, and there is not sixty, is it permitted to add up to sixty in order to nullify?
Answer: The Chamudei Daniel wrote9: 'One time a little meat gravy fell into a large pot of fish and gravy, and I instructed that it be mixed well until the taste would be nullified in sixty; for this is not a prohibition, that we should say that one may not nullify a prohibition l'chatchilah'.
And this reasoning the Pischei Teshuvah wrote10: 'Why did he not instruct that they add up to sixty, so that the taste of the fish would be nullified? For although with prohibitions it is forbidden to add, on account of nullifying a prohibition l'chatchilah, as is found in siman 99 se'if 6, nevertheless here it is certainly not applicable to speak of nullifying a prohibition, for this is not a prohibition; rather, so long as the taste of fish is discerned in the pot of meat there is danger in it, and when they add and the taste of fish is no longer discerned in the pot of meat, there will no longer be danger'.
And so too many Acharonim wrote to be lenient11.
But on the other hand there are Acharonim who forbade, as is written in Shu"t Avnei Tzedek12: 'Concerning the statement of the Pischei Teshuvah in siman 116, that according to the view that it is nullified in sixty, if there is not sixty here it is permitted to add in order to nullify it in sixty — his honour ruled well not to rely upon his words, for in my opinion his words are puzzling and there is none to interpret them .. and for this reason fish and meat is forbidden on account of the danger of tzaraas; and in my opinion it is a prohibition mid'oraisa, in a negative and a positive commandment, from that which is written ונשמרתם לנפשותיכם ("and you shall guard your souls"), and it is written ועשית מעקה לגגיך ולא תשים דמים בביתך כי יפול וגו' ("and you shall make a fence for your roof, and you shall not place blood in your house, that one fall" etc.) — thus the Torah commanded to guard against anything that can come to cause harm .. if so, also in matters of danger, and in fish and meat, even though after sixty there is no taste of fish in the meat and there is no danger, it is forbidden to nullify it or to add, according to the law explained in siman 99'.
And so wrote the Mekor Mayim Chaim13, Shulchan Chai14.
And there are among the Acharonim15 who decided to be lenient in a case of loss or for the need of Shabbos and Yom Tov, as is written in Shu"t Harei Besamim16: 'And particularly in the case of our question, for the honour of Yom Tov, we certainly should permit adding and nullifying; for indeed in the responsa of Rabbi Akiva Eiger siman 38 he rules to rely, in a case of hefsed merubeh, upon the words of the Rashba, like whom the Mechaber rules in YD siman 99 se'if 6, that with a rabbinic prohibition it is permitted to add and nullify even when it has a basis in a Torah matter; and so it is written in the Yam Shel Shlomo and in the Taz there. If so, all the more so may one rely on being lenient in this for the need of the mitzvah of simchas Yom Tov, even without a loss, and as is written in Tosafos, Pesachim 11a .. that wherever it is permitted in a case of loss, all the more so is it permitted in a case of a mitzvah, and see Rosh Hashanah 27a, that the honour of Yom Tov is preferable to a monetary loss; see there'.
Accordingly, since this matter is subject to a dispute among the Acharonim, l'chatchilah it is fitting to be stringent, unless it is in a case of loss or for the need of Shabbos and Yom Tov
---
Notes:
1 YD siman 25 ↩
2 To note from the Pri Megadim YD, Siftei Daas siman 97 s"k 3, who wrote: 'And if they roasted meat with fish and we see that it dripped, the fish are forbidden out of doubt, lest it dripped beneath the fish, *and a doubt in a Torah matter is [resolved] stringently'* ↩
3 The Yad Efraim YD siman 116. And the Zivchei Tzedek YD there, os 4. Kaf HaChaim YD os 17 ↩
4 YD siman 85 ↩
5 Inyanei YD siman 55 ↩
6 YD siman 8 os 4 ↩
7 Vol. 2 siman 53 ↩
8 Vol. 6 siman 111 os 5 ↩
9 Ta'aruvos, the first, siman 16, and in Ta'aruvos, the second, siman 40 ↩
10 YD 116 s"k 3 ↩
11 See Shu"t הרמ"ץ YD siman 22. Shu"t Eretz Tzvi (Teumim) vol. 2 siman 33. Shu"t Mahara"sh Engel vol. 1 siman 83. Shu"t Ein Yitzchok OC siman 24 os 2. Shu"t Degel Efraim siman 28. Shu"t Yad Yosef YD siman 58. Shu"t Divrei Shalom V'Emes OC siman 13. Shu"t Divrei Yaakov siman 54. Darkei Hora'ah perek 75. Shu"t Yabia Omer vol. 1 YD siman 8 os 7 onward ↩
12 YD siman 49, brought in Atzei HaOlah, Ta'aruvos klal 2 se'if 12, and Divrei Yatziv YD siman 31 10 ↩
13 YD 116 se'if 2 ↩
14 Siman 1 se'if 3. (The Maharsha"m in Shu"t vol. 3 siman 288 was stringent, but in vol. 7 siman 183 he was lenient, and this requires examination) ↩
15 Mishmeres Shalom, Chidushei Dinim, end of siman 108 os 2. Shu"t Daas Kohen there ↩
16 Vol. 5, end of siman 40 ↩
[11] (Halacha 697)
Question: Is it necessary to designate separate vessels for fish, apart from the vessels for meat?
Answer: The Tur wrote1: 'And there are those who are stringent in the matter, to designate for fish separate vessels'.
And the Issur v'Heter wrote2: 'And likewise anything that is on account of vessels — we do not forbid from meat to fish bedieved, by reason of the danger of davar acher; for behold, the Gemara permits fish that came up in a boiling bowl of meat. And likewise we did not forbid above, even l'chatchilah, fish that were already cooked in a pot, or roasted on a spit of meat that is ben yomo without its having been made white-hot in between, only to eat them with milk. And even l'chatchilah they are accustomed only to clean a frying pan or a cauldron of meat that is ben yomo with water and earth, from the actual grease that is upon it, and to cook fish in it immediately. And bedieved it is permitted even if he did not clean them at all, and even with an earthenware vessel — unless he knew clearly that they were very dirty from remnants of the meat, such that there was not sixty in the fish against that grease; and the reason of the absorption of the walls (another version: the vessel) of the meat is not applicable here. However, l'chatchilah he should be careful, as is written in YD in the name of the Rosh, that one should designate vessels for fish by themselves, because it is harmful for davar acher — end of quote'.
Accordingly, the Issur v'Heter testifies that the minhag is that they are not concerned to designate vessels, but he writes that l'chatchilah one should indeed be careful, as the Tur wrote.
And in Hagahos Shaarei Dura3 he wrote that with taste there is no danger, and he did not mention a stringency to designate vessels: 'And הר"י asked me: how is it permitted even without kutach — behold, danger is more stringent than a prohibition, and since the taste of meat entered into it, it is a danger? And he answered that with taste there is no danger'.
And so the Maharsha"l wrote4: 'But that which they designate separate vessels — this is an error, for there is no danger except with the substance of meat and fish that became mixed one with the other; but with the imparting of taste there is nothing to be concerned about5, as I proved in perek Gid HaNasheh siman 15'.
And in practice the consensus of the Acharonim is to be lenient, and many poskim testified that such is also the minhag in actual practice, that they do not designate special vessels for fish, as follows:
The Taz wrote6: 'But that which they said in this matter, "fish that came up in a bowl" etc. — one may learn from this that there is no danger in eating a fish which has in it the taste of meat, from having been cooked in a vessel of meat that is ben yomo; for we say in the Gemara that many ate fish that came up in a bowl etc.'.
And so most of the poskim wrote in practice, that there is no concern with taste that is in vessels. And many poskim, both of the poskim of Ashkenaz and of the poskim of Sefarad, also testified that such is the minhag7 in practice8, and as the Knesses HaGedolah wrote9: 'And it seems that the world is not careful even l'chatchilah, unless they are touching one another; and likewise with regard to the emission of a vessel they are not careful'.
And in the Zivchei Tzedek10 he wrote: 'And although the poskim adopted [this] bedieved, in our country they were accustomed to cook l'chatchilah and they are not careful'.
And beyond this, he wrote in Chinuch Beis Yehudah11: 'But with the emission of a vessel there is no one who is particular, and let not the money of Yisroel be lost to prepare three sets of vessels for a cooked dish of meat and of milk and of fish; and it is not for us to invent prohibitions of our own accord'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is one to be stringent if the fish or the meat are sharp?
Answer: We have found poskim who wrote to be stringent with a sharp food, as the Darkei Teshuvah wrote11: 'And see in the sefer Dalsei Teshuvah above, siman 95 s"k 5, who wrote .. but with a sharp food, such as fish that are cooked in strong vinegar in a meat vessel, it is possible that there is danger in it, for with a sharp food we do not say nosen taam bar nosen taam, since it draws out all the taste, etc. And likewise where one cooks vinegar by itself in a vessel of meat and afterwards pours it over fish, that it may be said that it is a danger, since it is only one taste; and the world is accustomed to cook vinegar and strain it on account of worms and to eat it with fish — if so, one should not cook the vinegar in a vessel of meat — end of quote. And in the responsa at the end of the sefer Arugos HaBosem, siman 14, in the middle of the responsum: concerning that which is very common, that they cook vinegar in a meat vessel and prepare fish with it .. one should refrain from this, for there is a concern of the danger of meat and fish; and although the Taz wrote that with the emission of vessels the concern of the danger of meat and fish is not applicable, nevertheless their entire proof is from that which is explained, that they ate fish that came up in a bowl of meat — behold, it may be said that this is specifically there, where it is nosen taam bar nosen taam, which is not so with a sharp food, and there is no proof from there to permit .. and he concluded in a state of unresolved difficulty as to why the world is not careful in this; see there .. And see in the sefer Megadim Chadashim os 3, who brought it and wrote that accordingly it appears that one should also be careful not to cut onions with a knife of meat and place them into fish to cook, as is the way of the world, to cook fish with onions, since there is the pressure of the knife and also a sharp food .. However, for the halacha he wrote that one may be lenient in this too, and rely upon the poskim that onions are not a sharp food, only a grain of chiltis; except that every ba'al nefesh should be careful to be stringent l'chatchilah; see there'.
And similarly the Shevet HaLevi wrote12: 'And with regard to a meat grinder in which they grind meat: if this is without a sharp food, its law is like a cooking vessel, and there is an all-the-more-so to be lenient from there. But if it is the practice to put onion and a sharp food there after they ground meat, and a sharp food of meat, where there is the pressure of the knife and a sharp food — if so, one should be concerned for actual taste that comes out by means of the sharpness of the onion. However, in this too there are those who are lenient, since there are those who say that this too, at least with regard to danger, is called only taste and not actual [substance], even though with regard to prohibition it is not so; and further, there is one who says that onion is not called sharp - and for a need one may rely upon this'.
But from all the poskim above, who did not mention a distinction between sharp and not sharp, it is proven that they did not hold this stringency; and likewise the stringent ones themselves testified that the minhag in actual practice is that they are not stringent, and so the minhag of the world is to be lenient even with a sharp food13.
--------------
Notes:
1 YD siman 116 ↩
2 Shaar 39 siman 26 ↩
3 Siman 57 os 1 ↩
4 Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin perek 8 siman 9 (and so he wrote on the Shaarei Dura there) ↩
5 However, the Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD siman 116 os 18, wrote: 'And it appears that the reason of those who designate vessels is lest sometimes crumbs of fish remain in the vessel and he places meat in them, or the reverse, and that is the substance of the prohibition. And see also in Shulchan Chai siman 1 os 7 ↩
6 YD siman 95 s"k 3 ↩
7 See Shvus Yaakov, Shu"t vol. 3 siman 70. Lechem HaPanim YD siman 116 s"k 3. Chut HaShani siman 67. Pri Megadim YD, Siftei Daas siman 97 s"k 3. Chavas Daas, Chidushim, siman 95 s"k 2. Pischei Teshuvah YD siman 116 s"k 3, from the Tiferes L'Moshe in the name of his grandfather R' Yaakov. Eidus BiYehosef (Ben Simon) vol. 2 siman 46, and his words are brought in Ikarei HaDa'as YD siman 14 os 10 and in Zechor L'Avraham vol. 3 os 60 186. Shu"t Chasam Sofer vol. 2 YD siman 101. Shu"t HaElef Lecha Shlomo OC siman 312 and 313. And more ↩
8 And to note that we have found one who testified concerning the minhag of his place that they are indeed particular to designate separate vessels for fish, as the Shulchan Chai wrote there: 'L'chatchilah it is forbidden to cook fish in a vessel of meat or the reverse, and one should designate vessels for cooking fish, and so is the minhag. And it appears to me that on account of the minhag one should not cook even in a meat vessel that is not ben yomo. And with a spoon they are accustomed to be lenient, to use a spoon of meat even if it is ben yomo; and they are accustomed to pour out the fish into bowls of meat even if they are ben yomo, and there is no concern or hesitation according to the law in this either; and those who are accustomed to cool the fish before pouring them into a meat vessel — may a blessing come upon them'. And concerning what is written in Dalsei Teshuvah there — 'and the world is accustomed to be lenient in this even l'chatchilah' — he wrote: 'And I have not seen this minhag with my own eyes; on the contrary, the minhag among all Yisroel in our country is that they have special vessels for cooking fish and they do not cook in vessels of meat .. and if so, chas v'shalom to be lenient l'chatchilah to cook fish in a vessel of meat .. but in this they are accustomed to be lenient, to pour out fish into bowls of meat even if they are boiling hot, for in this there is no concern at all .. and as for what they are accustomed to be lenient about, to use a spoon of meat even if it is ben yomo, in my humble opinion the reason is because most times there is sixty against the spoon, together with the fact that an ordinary vessel is not ben yomo' ↩
9 Hagahos Beis Yosef YD siman 116 os 18 ↩
10 YD siman 116 s"k 8 ↩
11 Shu"t siman 61 ↩
12 Siman 116 s"k 27 ↩
13 Shu"t vol. 6 siman 111 4 ↩
14 And see also Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 116 os 7 note 81, and that so it is written in the sefer Davar Charif perek 15 se'if 3 ↩
[12] (Halacha 698)
Question: A person who mistakenly cooked meat and fish together — what is the law of the vessels?
Answer: The Shvus Yaakov wrote1: 'Further, in one house they cooked and fried salted fish with goose fat, for they did not know at all that there is a prohibition in the matter, until one learned man came and told them that it is forbidden on account of danger, and they threw out the fish. And I was asked about the spoon with which they stirred the fish, and further, it was not wiped, and they thrust it into a pot of meat — what is its law? Answer: behold, it is already explained in my sefer Minchas Yaakov klal 57 and 58 s"k that there is no concern of danger with the emission of vessels; and although it is explained there that there are those who differ with this, nevertheless we adopt as the principal [view] like those who are lenient, if it is clean'.
On the other hand, the Tiferes L'Moshe2 [brought in Shiyurei Bracha3, and in Pischei Teshuvah4] wrote: 'And I heard in the name of my teacher, my grandfather, the Rav Hagaon Moha"r Yaakov z"l, that where a fish fell into a pot with meat, or the reverse, he would forbid the vessel without hagalah; for although they cook fish in a vessel of meat or the reverse, that is because the taste that emerges from a pot has no power to produce venom, but when meat and fish were cooked in a pot together, behold, venom was cooked within it and the venom was absorbed into the pot, and it is forbidden, and examine it well'.
And so it is written in Avnei Tzedek (Basis)5: 'And that which is written in the responsum of the Shvus Yaakov vol. 3 siman [70] concerning fish that they fried in goose fat, that the spoon with which they stirred the fish does not forbid, for there is no concern of danger with the emission of the vessels — see there — is not so, for after it became forbidden there is a concern of danger even with the emission of the vessels; and it is specifically with the emission of vessels which have absorbed from meat alone or from fish alone that there is no concern of danger in their emission, which is not so once it became forbidden'.
Also in Shu"t Melamed L'Ho'il6 he wrote: 'Fish that were cooked together with fat of meat in a frying pan, and the fish were afterwards placed into a bowl of porcelain, and from the bowl they were placed into a plate of porcelain — what is the law of the frying pan and the bowl and the plate .. I ruled to permit the frying pan, which is of iron and coated with a white enamel, by means of hagalah, and the bowl and the plate I permitted by means of hagalah three times'.
And so it was ruled in Shevet HaLevi7: 'And we are accustomed to rule in this like the Tiferes L'Moshe, to require hagalah; and in Mishmeres Shalom siman 116 he inclines to be lenient at least with an earthenware vessel; see there'. And so it is written in Yabia Omer8: 'It appears that the principal ruling for the halacha is to be concerned for the majority of the Acharonim mentioned above, to require hagalah for the vessels'.
On the other hand, there are Acharonim who wrote like the Shvus Yaakov, that the vessels do not become forbidden, and there are those who required at least to wait twenty-four hours before use, as follows:
The Divrei Malkiel wrote9: 'And in my humble opinion it should not be forbidden entirely, only to leave it for a mei'es le'es, for when the taste is spoiled there is no longer danger in it. And seemingly it may be said that only with a prohibition, which becomes forbidden only when it imparts taste for the better, so that he derives benefit from the prohibition — in that case it is permitted when the taste has become spoiled; but with danger, where we are certain that the mixed taste of meat and fish harms a person, in this there is no difference between improved taste and spoiled taste. But in truth this is not so, for since the taste has become spoiled it is no longer called the taste of that thing at all, but merely like wood, and behold it is as if the thing has changed entirely .. And even though it may be said that even though the taste has become spoiled, nevertheless the venom has not gone out of it — nonetheless, in my humble opinion one may be lenient .. And that which the Tiferes L'Moshe distinguished between what absorbed the taste of meat alone and the taste of meat and fish together requires examination in my humble opinion, for what is the difference, since we have established that taam k'ikar .. And behold, in our case one need only nullify the taste that was absorbed from the lesser of them, either the meat or the fish, for then there is no longer venom. And there properly is sixty in what is in the pot against it. And one cannot say that since the tastes have already become united and the taste has become venomous, nullification is not effective unless he nullifies the entire taste — this is not so, for the Acharonim have already written to be lenient where meat fell into fish that are cooking, to add up to sixty. It is thus evident that even though the taste of the meat has already been absorbed into the fish, nonetheless nullification against the meat alone is effective, and the same is so in our case. And apart from all of these, behold, the Chasam Sofer in siman 101 was entirely lenient with the taste of fish, and even with fish soup that spilled into fat. And particularly according to what we inclined to, with the help of Heaven, above, to be lenient in this matter generally, it appears simple that one should rule to leave the vessel for a mei'es le'es, and not to trouble oneself at all with hagalah, and all the more so with a vessel where hagalah is impossible'.
And so it was ruled in the Kaf HaChaim10: 'A fish fell into a pot of meat, or the reverse .. However, the Issur v'Heter klal 23 din 7 wrote that on account of the taste of a vessel's absorption there is nothing to be concerned about, and the Taz s"k 2 brought his words. And therefore it appears that after a mei'es le'es one may be lenient. And this applies specifically where there is not sixty, for if there is sixty the cooked dish too is permitted, as is written in the preceding os11'. And so it was ruled in Halacha Berurah12.
And in Mishmeres Shalom13 he relied upon this with regard to earthenware vessels, which have no remedy through hagalah: 'And I have found in Shvus Yaakov vol. 3 siman 70 that it is explicitly explained that in this too we say that with the emission of vessels there is no matter of danger; see there. Therefore, at least with an earthenware vessel, where hagalah is impossible, one may permit the vessel after a mei'es le'es'.
And in Teshuvos V'Hanhagos14: 'I was asked, when they inquired of me, concerning those who cooked meat and fish together by mistake .. And with regard to the vessel, the Pischei Teshuvah in the name of the Tiferes L'Moshe wrote that hagalah is required, and in the glosses of Harav P. Epstein zt"l to the sefer Shmiras HaNefesh he wrote that we have not heard in our days of anyone who rules so; and in Shu"t Divrei Malkiel he wrote to wait twenty-four hours, and afterwards it is permitted to cook in it without hagalah. And in my humble opinion, if the waiting is difficult for him, since he needs the vessel immediately, let him fill the vessel with water and boil it, and the absorption will be emitted into the water, and let him rinse it well; and one may rely that what it will still emit afterwards does not contain enough to be a danger and will not cause harm, with the help of Heaven'.
Accordingly, in practice, since the Acharonim disagreed in this, l'chatchilah one must perform hagalah on vessels which have absorbed from meat and fish; but in a case where hagalah is impossible, one may rely upon those who permit, after waiting twenty-four hours.
----
Notes:
1 Shu"t vol. 3 siman 70 ↩
2 YD siman 116 ↩
3 S"k 7 ↩
4 S"k 3 ↩
5 YD siman 116 ↩
6 Vol. 2 YD siman 37 ↩
7 Shu"t vol. 6 siman 111 os 6 ↩
8 Shu"t vol. 4 YD siman 4 ↩
9 Shu"t vol. 2 siman 53 13 - 14 ↩
10 YD 116 s"k 3 ↩
11 And see Mishmeres HaBayis (Karp) Hilchos Basar B'Cholov perek 3 note 7 ↩
12 OC siman 173 os 9. (It seems that what his father wrote in Yabia Omer escaped him) ↩
13 Vol. 2 siman 116 os 8 ↩
14 Vol. 4 siman 189 ↩
[13] (Halacha 701)
Question: Is it permitted to prepare fish and meat in one oven?
Answer: We have already learned that the Gemara in Maseches Pesachim1 says: 'That beinisa which was roasted together with meat — Rava of Parzikya forbade eating it with kutach. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: even with salt it is likewise forbidden, because it is harmful for reicha and for davar acher'.
And Rashi explained: 'that was roasted together with meat — in one oven. Rava of Parzika forbade eating it with kutach — which contains milk, because he holds that reicha is a substantive matter'.
That is to say, according to the approach of Rashi, the words of Mar bar Rav Ashi, who forbade even bedieved, were said with regard to the roasting of meat and fish in one oven; but this is according to the approaches that forbid in the law of reicha.
But the Issur v'Heter HaAroch wrote2: 'And it is specifically with regard to prohibition that we say, with two kinds that impart flavour, that reicha is a substantive matter, as I have explained; but it is obvious that with regard to danger — for example, where one baked a pashtida of meat together with one of fish in one oven, and both of them uncovered, even in our ovens which are covered above, and even in a small oven, and even if it is entirely closed, and they did not touch each other at all — it is permitted bedieved; and even though we have established that danger is more stringent than a prohibition, for in such a case there is no danger in it at all, since the Rambam, perek 9 of Ma'achalos Asuros, does not forbid fish that were roasted with meat in an oven except to eat them with milk. And he does not distinguish at all among ovens, between theirs and ours; and even if both of them are without a pan, only that they are somewhat distanced one from the other. For even if some of the grease comes out into the oven, that is of no consequence, for with the absorption of an oven and of a vessel there is no danger, as is found below. But l'chatchilah he should nevertheless be careful'.
And the Maharsha"l wrote3: 'And in the Smak4 he wrote, and these are his words: there are those who say that even if one roasted fish with meat it is forbidden to eat it, because it is harmful for davar acher, and specifically in a small oven; but in a large oven one need not be particular — end of quote. One should not infer from this of the Smak that at the very least l'chatchilah it is forbidden even in large ovens, as we are accustomed to be stringent with meat together with milk even in large ovens, and all the more so in a place of great danger, and it would be possible to be stringent and to forbid even bedieved. Nevertheless it appears to me that it is permitted l'chatchilah, since the Mordechai5 wrote in the name of Maimuni6 that if one roasted fish with meat it is forbidden to eat it with milk — even though it is certain to him that it absorbed reicha from the meat, nevertheless (reicha) he permits the fish by itself. It is thus evident that with reicha there is no danger at all, except with substance; and he was a father to all the physicians and the natural scientists, and consequently it is permitted even l'chatchilah .. And as for that which is stated explicitly in perek Keitzad Tzolin7, that it is forbidden even with salt — and these are his words: that we conclude there, that beinisa which was roasted together with meat, Rava of Parzikya forbade eating it with kutach; Mar bar Rav Ashi said: even with salt it is likewise forbidden, because it is harmful for reicha and davar acher; and the halacha is certainly like Mar bar Rav Ashi, for he was the later one, and Heaven forbid to say that he relied upon his own wisdom against the halachic sugya — it must be said that he holds that this incident does not speak of where they roasted it in one oven, as Rashi explained (there, d"h דאיטוי), for he holds that in such a manner there is no concern of danger in it, and Mar bar Rav Ashi would not have forbidden it, but rather where one roasted it with actual meat; and even so Rava did not forbid it with salt, and Mar bar R"A forbade it even with salt, and such is the halacha — if it was cooked with actual meat, they are forbidden on account of danger'.
But there are those who wrote that even according to those who permit reicha in the laws of meat and milk, nevertheless with meat and fish, which is on account of danger, it is forbidden even bedieved, as the Be'er Sheva wrote8: 'Nevertheless it appears in my eyes that for us, who are accustomed to forbid l'chatchilah to roast permitted [food] together with forbidden, or meat together with milk, in one oven, on account of reicha being a substantive matter, even in large ovens, and not like the view of the Smak — consequently in a place of danger one should be stringent and forbid even bedieved, for danger is more stringent than a prohibition, as is found in the first perek of Chullin ..'.
The Knesses HaGedolah9 brought the various views and summarised: 'We find that we have learned three opinions in the matter. According to the Rashal it is permitted even l'chatchilah; according to the Issur v'Heter it is permitted bedieved and forbidden l'chatchilah; according to the Be'er Sheva it is forbidden even bedieved. And with regard to practice, to adopt the middle course is preferable — that l'chatchilah they are forbidden and bedieved they are permitted, and it seems that the world is not careful even l'chatchilah, unless they are touching one another; and likewise with regard to the emission of a vessel they are not careful. And according to all views, where they touch one another, and all the more so where they were roasted or baked together, one should be concerned for danger, and so is the practice of the people'.
Accordingly, we have seen the various views in the law of roasting meat and fish in one oven. And in the following halacha we shall see the words of the poskim in practice.
--------------
Notes:
1 76b ↩
2 Shaar 39 siman 25 (brought in Darkei Moshe YD 116 s"k 3). But the poskim noted that this contradicts the continuation of his words there in siman 27, where he wrote: 'But certainly if they were roasted or baked together, *even if they did not touch one another, both of them are forbidden'*. And see in the Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD siman 116 os 18, who wrote to explain: 'And it certainly appears that the distinction between os 25 and os 27 — that in os 25 it is permitted bedieved and in os 27 it is forbidden bedieved — is that in os 25 they are distanced one from the other in such a way that it is impossible for the grease to drip except into the oven, and not from the meat to the fish or the reverse; but in os 27 he is speaking of where it is possible for it to drip from one to the other, even though they are not touching. And so wrote the Shach and the Taz and Toras Chatas klal 77 os 11. And the sefer HaMapah wrote without qualification: and likewise one should not roast meat with fish, on account of reicha; however, bedieved it is not forbidden — and his unqualified statement is like his explanation, that it is specifically on account of reicha that bedieved it is not forbidden, but if they were cooked together they are forbidden even bedieved; and the same is so if there is cause for concern that the grease will drip from one to the other, that is, where they were cooked together'. And see also in Hagahos Zer Zahav on the Issur v'Heter, who explained in another manner ↩
3 Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin perek 7 siman 15 ↩
4 End of siman 213 ↩
5 Siman 665 ↩
6 Rambam, Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros perek 9 halacha 23 ↩
7 Pesachim 76b ↩
8 Shu"t siman 35 ↩
9 Cited above, note 2 ↩
[14] (Halacha 702)
In the previous halacha we saw that the poskim disagreed as to the law of the roasting of meat and fish in one oven.
Question: What is the halacha as ruled in practice?
Answer: The Rema wrote1: 'And likewise one should not roast meat with fish, on account of reicha. However, bedieved it does not forbid'2.
L'chatchilah
Accordingly, the Rema writes that also in a case of danger we forbid l'chatchilah to roast them together, by reason of the law of 'reicha'. The principal laws of reicha are explained in Shulchan Aruch siman 108, and there the Rema is stringent with regard to permitted and forbidden [food] l'chatchilah even in a large oven; and the Pri Megadim wrote3 that likewise the words of the Rema here in siman 117, who wrote without qualification to be stringent, were said also concerning a large oven: 'And below, siman 116, it is explained that l'chatchilah one should not roast meat with fish, even in a large oven'.
The Taz here too, although he brought4 the words of the Maharsha"l, who was lenient in this law: 'And the Rashal wrote, perek Gid HaNasheh siman 15, that even l'chatchilah one should not be stringent in a large oven with regard to this5, even though with regard to the prohibition of meat with milk we are stringent l'chatchilah ..' — nevertheless in the continuation of his words6 he inclined to be stringent like the ruling of the Rema, who forbade l'chatchilah: '.. but in my humble opinion, since according to Rashi it refers to the roasting of meat and fish in an oven, one should be stringent even with reicha; and further, for the Beis Yosef wrote in siman 95 that the Rambam also explains that passage of Keitzad Tzolin as being in one oven, and if so it is forbidden according to Mar bar Rav Ashi even on account of reicha, on account of danger, just as with regard to meat with milk ..'.
However, as stated above, the words of the Rema to be stringent with fish and meat l'chatchilah even in a large oven are in accordance with his approach in the laws of reicha with regard to permitted and forbidden [food], that one should be stringent l'chatchilah. But according to the views that there, in a large oven, one need not be stringent, in our case too one should not be stringent, as the Pri Chodosh wrote7 (according to his approach in the law of reicha in siman 108): '.. but in a large oven, where we are accustomed to permit l'chatchilah, and as is written in siman 108 [there], with regard to fish and meat too it is permitted even l'chatchilah; for what is the reason that we permit even l'chatchilah? Because there is no reicha here. If so, what reason is there to forbid on account of danger, since there is no reicha here at all? And therefore the matter is simple, that even a matter of danger is permitted l'chatchilah in a large oven'.
Accordingly, we have seen that the view of the Rema is to be stringent l'chatchilah8, not to roast fish and meat together in the same oven; and the Acharonim explained that this is even in a large oven. And the view of the Pri Chodosh (according to his approach in the laws of reicha) is that in a large oven it is permitted l'chatchilah.
Bedieved
We have seen that the Rema permitted bedieved; however, the Shach9 wrote: 'And in the sefer Be'er Sheva, daf 101, he discussed this at length and differed with him, and ruled that even bedieved they are forbidden, because reicha is a substantive matter, even if they were roasted separated one from the other in one oven. [And] he wrote that even in a place where they are accustomed to permit, with regard to prohibition, bedieved, [where] reicha is a substantive matter, and to forbid l'chatchilah, as above in siman 108 — with regard to danger it is forbidden even bedieved; and see there'. And the poskim understood that the Shach decided stringently like the Be'er Sheva, and even in a large oven.
And concerning the view of the Rema the Pri Megadim wrote10: 'Fish that were roasted with meat — the view of the Rema in 116 is to permit bedieved, and it is implied in the Issur v'Heter 39 din 25 even [in] a small oven, entirely closed; but the Shach there, os 1, in the name of the Be'er Sheva, was stringent; see there'.
The Aruch HaShulchan11 wrote to be lenient bedieved, like the words of the Rema: 'And we have only the words of our teacher the Rema, who ruled that it is permitted bedieved'.
But the Pri Chodosh there wrote at the conclusion of his words: 'But in a small oven, where there is reicha, it is forbidden even bedieved, and there is no doubt at all in this, and one who differs in this is nothing but one of those who astonish'. And so wrote the Pri To'ar12.
And the Minchas Yaakov wrote13: 'But nevertheless, where there is no hefsed merubeh it is fitting to be stringent; for although we have established that reicha is not a substantive matter bedieved, like the Rambam .. nevertheless danger is more stringent than a prohibition, and it is possible that Levi and Rava too agree, with regard to fish with meat, like Mar bar Rav Ashi; and so it was ruled in the sefer Be'er Sheva, and so the Mahari"l wrote in a gloss in the laws of meat and milk, and the Taz in siman 116 s"k 3 also inclines to be stringent. And further, that the Issur v'Heter too, although he copied in klal 39 din 25 these words of the Rambam to permit bedieved, nevertheless in din 26 and 44 it is explicitly explained from his words that he forbids the fish and the meat bedieved (and it requires examination to reconcile his words). And the Smak too, siman 213, ruled to be stringent, and concluded: and specifically in a small oven, but in large ovens like ours one need not be particular — end of quote. And so it appears as the principal [ruling] for the halacha, and not like the Be'er Sheva, who went beyond measure to be stringent in every case, even in large ovens ..'.
Accordingly, we have seen that the view of the Rema is to permit bedieved even in a small oven14; but the view of the Be'er Sheva and the Shach is to be stringent even bedieved, and even in a large oven; and the view of the Pri Chodosh and the Pri To'ar is that they permitted l'chatchilah in a large oven but were stringent even bedieved in a small oven; and the Minchas Yaakov agreed with them, unless it is in a case of hefsed merubeh.
In practice, even in those cases where it would have been possible to permit [according to some of the views] at least bedieved fish and meat that were baked together — in actual fact, in many cases there is also much vapour in the oven, and therefore, even if there is no problem of reicha, there is also a problem by reason of the law of 'zei'ah'15, for it may be said that this causes everything to be considered as though it were actually cooked together, and then it would be forbidden even bedieved. And it is very common in our ordinary sealed ovens that there is moisture in them, which causes everything to be considered as cooked together by reason of the law of zei'ah. [And nevertheless, in a case where there is no zei'ah, there are cases where it is possible to permit where fish and meat were baked together, particularly where one of them is entirely covered16].
--------------
Notes:
1 YD siman 116 se'if 2 ↩
2 And the Gra explained, s"k 3: 'As is written in siman 108, that bedieved reicha is not a substantive matter' ↩
3 YD, Siftei Daas siman 97 s"k 3 ↩
4 S"k 2 ↩
5 From the continuation of the words of the Maharsha"l it appears that he holds that even in a small oven one should not be stringent even l'chatchilah. And see below ↩
6 S"k 3 ↩
7 Siman 116 s"k 4 ↩
8 To note that also in siman 108, with regard to reicha, the prohibition is where they are roasted in the air of the oven, but not where each of them is placed in a pot by itself; and the Rema also requires an open oven. Likewise, if one of them is covered it is permitted, since there is in this no prohibition of reicha, as is explained in siman 108 in the Rema, in a gloss on se'if 1 ↩
9 YD siman 116 s"k 1 ↩
10 YD, Siftei Daas siman 108 s"k 18 os 7 ↩
11 YD siman 116 se'if 10 ↩
12 Siman 116 s"k 3 ↩
13 Klal 76 s"k 26. And in Soles LaMinchah he added that such is the consensus of the Pri Chodosh ↩
14 To note that in siman 108 se'if 1, with regard to permitted and forbidden [food], the Rema permitted bedieved only where the oven is somewhat open, unless it is in a case of loss ↩
15 See YD siman 92 se'if 8 ↩
16 And see above, note 8; and where it is entirely covered it seems that one may permit l'chatchilah, as above. And see also Sefer HaKashrus perek 11 os 31 ↩
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