Rav Baruch Simon, Shlita Hilchos Basar B'Chalav, Winter/Spring 5768

1
‫בס"ד‬
Rav Baruch Simon, Shlita
Hilchos Basar B’Chalav, Winter/Spring 5768
**PLEASE NOTE: These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are simply the notes I took
during the shiurim.
- Beni Krohn
#1 ‫שיעור‬
Issurei Basar B’Chalav
I. How many issurim are we talking about?

A. ‫ רש"י‬Shmos 23:19- “Lo sivashel gdi b’chaleiv imo” 3 times: Issur achila, bishul, and
hanaa. Sounds like 3 separate issurim or one issur with 3 parts.
B. Malkus for achila and Bishul, no malkus for hanaa:

1. Sefer HaChinuch 113: if eat bb”ch, loke. But if get hanaa, no malkus b/c
efshar to be nehene from it without a maaseh.
[Machlokes Sefer Hachinuch/‫ 'רמ‬how to define lav sheyesh bo malkus lokin alav:
-- Sefer haChinuch 113- in order to be considered lav sheyesh bo maaseh, has to be that
always done b’maaseh, but if efshar to do it without a maaseh, then even if do it with a
maaseh, not loke.
-- ‫ 'רמ‬Chametz umatza by baal yeirae: If don’t get rid of chametz, not loke, but if go out
and buy chametz on Pesach, then will get malkus. Apparently, looks at each situation on
its own.]
2. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 8:16- any food that’s assur b’hanaa, if nehene without achila, don’t get
malkus.  ‫מ"מ‬- only get malkus if nehene k’derech hanaaso and by food that is only by
eating. Any other hanaa has din ½ ‫ שיעור‬b’eichus.
C. Malkus for all three:

1. ‫( רמב"ן‬Megillas Esther) – Malkus for all 3.
2. Mishna L’melech- Bb”ch is different than other cases where have issur achila
by one issur and issur hanaa for another reason. By bb”ch, the issur is to be nehene,
either through achila, or through hanaa, so even the ‫ רמב"ן‬who holds you get malkus for
hanaa, would be maskim that only get malkus once for achila, not two malkiyos, one for
achila, and one for hanaa. Ela, it’s like one issur, an issur hanaa, which has two ways to
be over, either by way of achila, or by hanaa. But ‫אה"נ‬, if only nehene, do get malkus.
(says he doesn’t understand svara of ‫)'רמ‬.
II. If Torah wants to express these three issurim, why write all three with lashon bishul?
A. Sefer haChinuch 113- Only chayav for eating issurim if eat them k’derech achilaso
(Gm Pesachim 24B), except for bb”ch and kilei hakerem by which Torah doesn’t say
Please Note: These notes have not been reviewed by R’ Simon. They are simply notes I took during the shiurim.
2
lashon achila. So lack of lashon achila leads to malkus even when eat shelo kiderech
achilaso.
B.‫ 'רמ‬Sefer haMitzvos 186/187- 2 Sep issurim for bishul and achilas bb”ch. Issur hanaa
is not a separate issur, ela part of issur achila. Explains that achila is just one example of
issur hanaa, and when torah assurs something b’achila, really assuring b’hanaa, but prime
hanaa of food is the achila (Psachim 21B- R’ Avahu- kol makom sheamru lo sochlu,
sochal, etc. is always an issur hanaa as well unless Torah says it b’feirush that mutar
b’hanaa). ‫ 'רמ‬explains that when torah says assur to eat something, really means to say
assur b’hanaa, just giving the main example of hanaa. Im kein, these shouldn’t be two
separate mitzvos.
**Chinuch by Chametz writes same as ‫'רמ‬, if kone chametz on Pesach loke and if not, not
loke. Seems to be a stira in Minchas Chinuch (??). Shaar haMelech discusses this stira
in the Chinuch, and may have a teretz.
III. Issur bb”ch by dvarim assurim: Bishul, Hana’a:

A. Gm Chullin 113B- “Hamivashel chalav b’cheilev”. Kosher meat, but for technicality
not kosher (chelev beheima tehora, neveila, etc.)? E/one agrees no malkus on achila b/c
ein issur chal al issur. Machlokes by bishul: 1) Yes, chayav for bishul, chad issura hu (no
issur chal al issur b/c no issur to cook other issurim). 2) The reason torah says issur
achila b’lashon bishul, to tell me that just like no extra malkus for achila, no malkus for
bishul as well.
 ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:6- Paskens like first deia: No malkus on achila, but are loke al bishulo.
B. Nekuda Niflaa - ‫ 'רמ‬Peirush Mishnayos Krisus perek 3: By Meila, cheilev only had
issur achila, then when becomes hekdesh, gets issur hanaa as well as an issur mosif, even
though generally say eicha”i. So why not say the same thing by bb”ch by dvarim
assurim: At first only issur achila, then when mivushal with chalav, now add an issur
hanaa? Answers that no, when mivashel chelev with chalav no issur hanaa either b/c the
issur achila and hanaa of bb”ch are one issur, they aren’t separate dinim. They are one
din: BB”CH. And this issur bb”ch can’t be chal on some other issur.
1. R’ Elchanan explains ‫ 'רמ‬based on Sefer haMitzvos. Issur achila is not an
independent issur, ela a form of hanaa, the main form, so generally Torah uses lashon
achila. And they go together. Therefore, as long as don’t have issur achilas bb”ch (b/c
eicha”i), the issur hanaa can’t be chal either.
2. R’ Soloveitchik’s understanding: Issur hanaa stems from issur achila, so if no
issur achila, no issur hanaa. Primarily issur achila, and hanaa stems from issur achila, so
if the issur achila, which is the ikar isn’t chal, then neither is the issur. However, by
Kodshim, Meilia isn’t primarily by achila b/c even a table can be hekdesh. So by
kodshim, ‫אה"נ‬, issur hanaa will be chal on issur hekdesh. [harder to understand b/c
assuming real issur is achila and hanaa is outgrowth of that, and ‫ 'רמ‬in sefer hamitzvos
says fakert].
C. ‫ נ"מ‬from this discussion of Ein Issur Chal Al Issur (Issur didn’t happen or just no
onesh):
3
1. Gm Yevamos 32B- Din in onshin. ‫נ"מ‬: Ein kovrin tzaddik eitzel rasha.
Reuven HaKohen married a grusha, Shimon haKohen married grusha who was a zona.
Even though ein issur chal al issur, Shimon did 2 issurim and don’t bury him next to
Reuven.
(a) Pri Megadim used this gm as raya that ein issur chal al issur is only by
onshin, but the aveira itself is chal. Asks what’s the ‫ 'רמ‬going to do with this gm? See
that there taka is a second issur, just a din in onshin (‫ 'רמ‬wanted to say that by bb”ch
won’t say that there is 2nd issur hanaa)!?
(b) Dagul Merivava 87:1- concludes that b’makom hefsed, can be somech
on Nekuda Niflaa (to use dog food that you already have that is made from bb”ch
neveila).
IV. Is there issur bishul bb”ch even if not planning on eating it?
A.‫ 'רמ‬Tumas Meis 1:1- meis is mitamei b’maga, masa, and ohel. Maga and Ohel are
mefurash in Torah, and masa is learned from kal v’chomer: Neveila, which only tamei
one night, and can be tamei from masa. So k’v a meis is mitamei b’masa as well. And
this is same thing as when Torah says can’t marry granddaughter, and doesn’t say can’t
marry daughter, but k’v. And same thing by bb”ch, says can’t cook it, but never says
can’t eat it. But since can’t cook it, for sure can’t eat it.
1. ‫כ"מ‬- What about “ein onshin min hadin”? Explains that it’s not really a k’v.
Bas habas is assur b/c of the bas. She’s only assur b/c she is the daughter of the bas. And
hu hadin by bb”ch, the whole issur bishul is so that you shouldn’t come to eat it. They’re
fundamentally connected.
-- So from this ‫כ"מ‬, see that the whole issur bishul may only come from the issur achila.
B. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:6- “lo sivashel” tells you that afilu bishulo assur.
C. Maaseh from R’ Joshua Hoffman, heard from R’ Aharon Soloveitchik: Dr. Macht
wanted to cook bb”ch to do experiments to find out if it was actually unhealthy. Asked R’
Moshe Soloveitchik, who said it was mutar b/c only assur to cook bb”ch if done for
purpose of human consumption based on this ‫'רמ‬. B/c if not being done for purpose of
achila, what kind of kal v’chomer is it, they’re not nec related. But if the issur of cooking
is shema will come to eat it, then k’v makes sense.
D. Doveiv Mesharim- Chemist who wanted to see if there as bb”ch in chocolate, and
would have to be mivashel it. Quotes this ‫כ"מ‬, and gm psachim that even though assur to
hold chametz on pesach shema will come to eat it, but if burning it, then mutar.
E. Har Tzvi- asks from chalav and chelev, see there can be issur bishul even when not
coming to achila b/c assur to eat it already.
**R’ Simon: These are not the best kulas around b/c hard to be matir a lav doraysa with a
diyuk in a ‫'רמ‬.
#2 ‫שיעור‬- Bb”ch Doraysa/Dirabanan
4
I. What is considered Basar and Chalav l’inyan issur dorasya of bb”ch?

A. Mishna Chullin 113A- Both Meat and Milk need to come from beheima tehora, but if
either one is from beheima temeia, mutar livashel and lihanos. R’ Akiva- chaya v’oaf
einam min hatorah. R’ Yossi Haglili- excludes birds, but chaya is doraysa.
B. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:3- needs to be from beheima tehora to be bb”ch. Temeia, mutar b’hanaa
and bishul. 4- birds and chaya make bb”ch midirabanan, so assur to eat, but mutar
livashel and lihanos.  Only assured achila b/c only a harchaka from bb”ch doraysa.
1. ‫ 'רמ‬Hilchos Mamrim 2:9- Chachamim make gzeiros and no problem of bal
tosif. Explains that as long as chachamim explain that this is an issur dirabanan as a
gzeira, etc. and not saying that this is doraysa, then no problem of bal tosif. But when
refers to chaya, says it’s issur doraysa (stira, not clear how to resolve it, we didn’t try).
C. Those who hold oaf can make bb”ch midoraysa:

1. 104 '‫תוס‬B- olam is noheig not to eat cheese even after chicken b/c we hold oaf
is doraysa, and those who held you can eat cheese after oaf holds its dirabanan (igra).
2. Yam Shel Shlomo (Chullin 113-114) - Chaya and oaf are doraysa. Cases of
bb”ch dirabanan are kavush, meliach, etc.
II. What is assur when we assur something as bb”ch dirabanan?

A. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:3- only assured achilas oaf and chalav, but bishul and hanaa are mutar.
B. Yam Shel Shlomo (above) - All three should be assur, achila, bishul, and hanaa.
K’ein doraysa tiknu. However, basar beheima tehora in chalav temeia (and vice versa),
mutar livashel and lihanos b/c they weren’t gozer on it b/c it’s already assur b’achila.
C. 87:1 ‫טור‬- Says that basar tehora and chalav temeia, or vice versa, and basar chaya
v’oaf even in chalav tehora, assur midirabanan, and mutar b’bishul and hanaa (paskens
like ‫)'רמ‬.
1. Bach 87:1- argues with ‫ רמ‬:‫ 'טור‬is saying that bishul and hanaa are mutar
midoraysa, but assur midirabanan. ‫ 'רמ‬usually quotes lashon of the gm and that’s why he
wasn’t mifareish what he meant (says this is pashtus in gm chullin 103B kol habasar
assur livashel, and gm says even acc to ‫ר"ע‬, some are assur midirabanan, mashma even
assur livashel!).
D. Rama 87:1- any bb”ch that isn’t assur midoraysa is mutar b’hanaa. (learns ‫ 'רמ‬and ‫טור‬
k’pshutam)
1. 3 ‫רע"א‬- why did Rama only write mutar b’hanaa, what about bishul?
Answers, ‫אה"נ‬, mutar b’bishul as well, but since there are situations of bb”ch dirabanan
that will have issur bishul (i.e. basar and chalav that are kavush together, where if were
mivashel them, would become bb”ch doraysa), therefore, Rama didn’t want to give
blanket statement that all cases of bb”ch dirabanan are mutar b’bishul.
III. Status of bb”ch dirabanan that involves beheima temeia?

 Reading of the ‫ טור‬is problematic b/c limai ‫ נ"מ‬that it’s bb”ch dirabanan? The bishul
and hanaa are mutar ligamrei and the achila is assur midoraysa anyways?
5
A. Beis Yosef- eino ela dirabanan isn’t going on that line, so changes the order of the
words, so that it means that oaf and chaya w/ chalav tehora is eino ela midirabanan.
B. Bach- Doesn’t agree with the ‫טור‬, but thinks should leave the girsa alone for two
reasons:
1. Limaaseh, acc to Bach, there is issur dirabanan of bb”ch on beheima temeia b/c
he thinks that when rabanan make issur dirabanan by bb”ch that it’s by all 3, so bishul
and hanaa are assur.
2. Even acc to ‫טור‬, himself, if make issur dirabanan of bb”ch on basar temeia, then
will now say chanan, which you couldn’t say otherwise (acc to R’ Ephraim). So there is a
‫נ"מ‬.
C. Shach 87:3- Likes the change of the BY, and the Bach is wrong b/c no issur bb”ch
even midirabanan on beheima temeia.
D. Taz 87:2- Bach’s ‫ נ"מ‬about chanan is wrong b/c whole reason R’ Ephraim’s svara is
that two dvarim heterim coming together to make issur, so both should be assur = chanan.
However, in this scenario, basar (or chalav) is already assur altz beheim temeia, maybe
R’ Ephraim wouldn’t say chanan in this case.
What’s considered bishul l’inyan bb”ch? What’s the din of tzli (cheeseburger)?
A. Gm Sanhedrin 4b- How do we know Torah means chalav with basar and not cheilev?
Gm says “derech bishul asra torah”:
1. ‫רש"י‬: Torah says bishul, so need liquid medium, so must mean milk otherwise
that’s not bishul. Pashtus, need bishul and tzli is not bishul.
2. ‫ר"ן‬- No such thing as bb”ch kdei klipa (through tzli) b/c derech bishul asra
torah. Need bishul davka.
3. ‫'תוס‬:
a) Quotes ‫רש"י‬.
b) The issur can only be done with something that becomes assur b/c of
the bishul, msek chelev which is assur before the bishul. ‫ ל"ד‬bishul. Could be tzli would
work as well.
4. Pri Chadash- tzli is bichlal bishul. Brings raya from korban pesach that uses
lashon bishul to refer to tzli (u’bishalta v’achalta). However, blios b’tzonein are only
midiraban (kavush, meliach).
B. Pleisi 87:2- The gm in Pesachim wants to bring raya for tk’i from geulei akum.
However, some ask, maybe they only had to do hag’ala shema there was taam chalav or
basar in the pot b/c ku”a are mode that we same tk”i by bb”ch, so maybe no raya at all for
tk”i by shaar issurim? Answers, they were doing hag’ala and libun, and they would
never need to do libun for bb”ch b/c only have din bb”ch by bishul. Im kein, they had to
be doing libun for shaar issurim, so mistaber to say they were doing hagala for it as well.
C. Chavas Daas 87:1- Pleisi’s answer doesn’t work b/c we say tzli is dirabanan by bb”ch
when someone is making bb”ch through tzli. However, if roast meat in kli and then are
mivashel milk in that kli, that’s bishul bb’ch midoraysa! So should have to be chosheish
that maybe the goy just was tzole basar and now I’ll be mivashel chalav in there, which
would be bb’ch doraysa. So now maybe no raya from geulei akum.
6
D. Imrei Baruch- wants to answer for the Pleisi.
#3- 2.11.08/ 6 Adar I 5768

B’inyan Maris Ayin
I. Sources for Maris Ayin

A. Kilaim 9:2- Certain materials that looked like shaatnez assur altz maris ayin.
Bartenura- this was for them b/c these things weren’t sh’chiach and ppl would assume
you were doing the issur, but if it’s schiach and ppl know what it is, no issur.
B. By Issurei Achila: Gm Krisus 21b- dam dagim is mutar, but assur to put it in a cup
and drink it. Same as din by dam of human: If find on bread, have to remove it, but if its
still in your mouth, can swallow it b/c doesn’t look like you’re eating dam. ‫ הה"נ‬here,
when put it in a cup, assur to drink, but if put the scales in the cup or near the cup, so
everyone knows its from a fish, then mutar.
II. What’s the din of Chalav Isha?/ Are we gozer here as well?
A. Mechilta Parshas Mishpatim- “Chaleiv imo”, but not chalav beheima temeia and not
chalav adam.
B. Shut 257 ‫רשב"א‬-

1. Assur to cook [meat] with it, ks”k to eat it as long as its nikar. However, if it
falls in a mixture, batel without 60. And ‫ הה"נ‬by other milks, even beheima temeia.
(Mishna Chullin which says mutar livashel chalav beheima temeia with kosher meat
means altz issur bb”ch, not discussing possible issues of maris ayin. Talking meikar
hadin).
2. Issur of chaya midirabanan is fundamentally different from chalav isha/dam
dagim. It’s an issur dirabanan: Maris ayin- as long as you get rid of the maris ayin
(make it not nikar, have a heker, etc.) then mutar, no need for bitul, etc. Issur
Dirabanan- assur to even put it on the table with milk, and needs ‫ שיעור‬bitul.
C. Beis Yosef 87:4- agrees with ‫רשב"א‬, no need for ‫ שיעור‬bitul (sounds like the bitul is
bidieved, but not that can be mivatel lichatchila).
D. Darkei Moshe 2- Asks kasha on ‫רשב"א‬: Assuming his own yesod, from ‫'רמ‬, that
things that are only assur midirabanan are mutar livashel and lihanos, then what makes
chalav isha any worse that it should have issur maris ayin, whereas chaya and chalav
temeia are mutar livashel ligamrei!? (Meaning, when Rishonim (‫ )'רמ‬and Achronim say
these things are mutar, they mean ligamrei, not just altz issur bb”ch).
III. “Chalav” Shkeidim (almond milk)

A. Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin 110A, siman 52- Minhag on Purim to eat Chicken with
chalav shkeidim. Says assur to do unless put almonds nearby, so everyone knows it’s
almond milk. Problem of Maris Ayin. And especially by chicken and this milk shema
7
ppl will come to say that chalav and oaf is mutar ligamrei like R’ Yossi haGlili. (Learns
this din from din of dam dagim shekinsu)
B. 66:9-10 ‫טור‬: Dam dagim, even though mutar, if put it in kli assur mishum maris ayin,
but if put scales there, mutar. And dam adam same thing, if on bread, have to get rid of
it, but if still in mouth, can suck it up.
1. Darkei Moshe 9- Bothered by Yam shel shlomo’s extension of this din to
chalav shkeidim b/c is an issur kareis, very chamur, so have issur maris ayin. ‫משא"כ‬
basar oaf and chalav shkeidim, issur dirabanan, no din maris ayin.
C. Rama 87:3- lishitaso, no issur of maris ayin by chalav shkeidim and basar oaf, only
maris ayin on dirabanan, no need for hiker, but by basar beheima, then should have a
heker.
1. Shach 6- Quotes Ys”s that need heker even by oaf, thinks we should pasken
like him b/c there is concept of maris ayin even by dirabanans, like din that beheima can’t
wear bell on its neck on shabbos even if it won’t make noise b/c used to go this way to
the marketplace, which itself is only an issur dirabanan on shabbos.
2. Be’er Hetev 7- Defends Rama: Rama was only saying no maris ayin on
something that if you were really doing the issur would itself only be an issur maris ayin.
D’haynu oaf and chalav shkeidim, not maris ayin b/c worst case scenario, someone will
think you’re cooking oaf and real chalav, which itself is only assur altz maris ayin.
3. Pischei Teshuva 10- quotes Nachlas Tzvi that only have to worry about chalav
shkeidim in a public place, a lot ppl sitting around, big seuda. But doing it in privacy of
house would be ok even without a heker.
IV. What we do Limaaseh by Chalav Isha and its extensions:

A. Mechaber 87:4- assur livashel with chalav isha b/c of maris ayin, but if it falls into
taaroves, batel without a ‫שיעור‬. Rama- im kein, kol shekein assur to be mivashel chalav
temeia with basar tehora and vice versa, but oaf, which is only dirabanan in first place,
ein lachush (follows same svara he said in Darkei Moshe 2).
1. Shach 7- acc to Rama, would have to say that the ‫ טור‬and Mechaber only
meant these things were mutar livashel and lihanos midoraysa, but limaaseh, assur altz
maris ayin. Doesn’t like that pshat, ela thinks there is no issur bishul by beheima temeia
b/c once already assur b’achila, not going to have issur maris ayin b/c ppl realize it’s
l’tzorech refua. *And when mechaber says assur livashlam, he means assur to eat them
altz maris ayin. And ‫ הה"נ‬the issur by chalav isha is not livashel, but eating it with basar.
(And says issur by chalav shkeidim is also issur achila, not bishul.)
2. Taz 5- doesn’t like the kol shekein b/c gzeira is davka by chalav isha and basar
tehora b/c only assured something where both are mutar b’achila and now mivashel them
together, like the real issur of bb”ch. But not kol shekein to other things. But limaaseh,
says can’t argue on the psak of the Rama.
V. When do chazal assur something b/c of Maris Ayin?
8
Background: Gm Chullin 116A- R’ Elazar held that not only was mila on shabbos
mutar, but even machshirei mila were mutar. Would cut down trees to make the knife,
etc. And in R’ Yossi HaGlili’s town they used to eat basar oaf and milk.
A. Kreisi Upleisi 87
1. 7- Maris ayin not shayach to chalav shkeidim b/c it’s not milk! B/c can only
start to talk about maris ayin when the substance itself is milk. So Rama thought didn’t
have to be machmir with oaf. But by basar beheima, worried about issur doraysa, then
should be machmir, even without real milk, holds like the Rama.
2. 8- 2 more points:
(a) No Maris Ayin by beheima temeia b/c chazal weren’t gozer on dvarim
she’einam shchichim, and who would cook assur meat!? Just have to throw it away!?
(b) Why wasn’t R’ Yossi HaGlili concerned with maris ayin? B/c it was
so sh’chiach, ppl had chicken and milk all the time, so no maris ayin b/c Maris Ayin is
when ppl will think you’re doing an issur, like dam dagim, ppl will assume it’s dam
beheima and will assume you’re doing an issur. However, when ppl know that you’re
doing something mutar b/c everyone does it, not maris ayin. Therefore, no din maris ayin
by chalav shkeidim either b/c everyone knows this is the minhag.
VI. Maris Ayin by Shaatnez, Margarine, Non-Dairy Creamer

A. YD 298- question of maris ayin by shaatnez, what if there is another material that
looks like linen with wool? Shach 2- since these things are matzui, ppl will assume
you’re using davar heter. Similar to idea of Pleisi, only say Maris Ayin when ppl will
assume you’re doing an issur. (See Bartenura at beg of ‫)שיעור‬.
B. Maadanei Asher siman 36- quotes Shut Cheshev haEfod: Cooking with margarine is
totally mutar, no need for heker b/c ppl cook with margarine all the time, so no din maris
ayin. (Everyone knows you’re not being over on the issur)
C. Yabia Omer 6:8- question of maris ayin by non-dairy creamer. Acc to Rama, where
no maris ayin by oaf and chalav shkeidim b/c it’s dirabanan, so for sure here also, even if
had milk mamash after basar only issur dirabanan. And acc to the Pleisi, since non-dairy
creamer is matzui, no problem. And even Maharshal who assured chalav shkeidim and
assured synthetic materials (Where?), maybe was only worried when oaf was in the milk,
but not when they are ze achar ze. So since all these things are sh’chiach, don’t need a
heker.
2.13.08 -#4 ‫שיעור‬

4 Chumros haRama and that which comes out of them
I. Chumra #1- stoking coals under non-Jew’s pot

A. Hagahos Mordechai AZ (Shiltei Giborim p.84) - R’ Baruch: Assur to allow a non-
Jew to cook non-kosher food in your house shema you will come to stoke the coals under
9
it, and therefore, any goy who would cook in a Jew’s house should have separate pots, so
won’t come to chashash bb”ch.
B. Rama 87:5- assur to be mechate under the pot of a goy shema there’s bb”ch and will
be cooking bb”ch.
1. Shach 18- quotes the whole shiltei gibborim, then adds that ‫ ל"ד‬basar, but
anything they would cook, and says this whole thing is only chumra b’alma.
C. What do we mean when we say Chumra b’alma? (1st 2 pshatim are in what Shach
meant, last 2 are their own svaros)
1. Imrei Baruch- Shach’s Chumra b’alma is only on the necessity for the goy to
have separate pots.
2. Kreisi U’pleisi 87:13- “chumra b’alma” is b/c not shayach to say derech
bishul when dealing with basar or chalav balua. B/c may have a raya that yesh bishul
achar bishul by bb”ch b/c the gzeira not to put meat and milk on table together, lichora, is
talking about cooked meat, so that can’t be the reason it’s a chumra.
3. Chassam Sofer (Teshuva 92) - So many sfeikos: Who said goy cooked milk in
it ever, and who says it’s ben yomo, etc. Doesn’t understand what the hava amina would
have been to say this is ikar hadin.
4. Aruch HaShulchan 87:31-
(a) Ein bishul achar bishul by bb”ch (when you stoke the coals don’t add
anything, already nisbashel).
(b) Even if blia is ben yomo, maybe cooking meat with blias chalav isn’t
considered derech bishul, and wouldn’t be issur bishul bb”ch.
II. Do we say yesh bishul achar bishul by bb”ch (and if so, in what situations)?
A. Issur V’heter (Hagahos b’sof haSefer 30:4) - meat that was already kavush in the
milk (24hrs), so taam of milk is now in the meat, and now cook it, that is considered
bishul bb”ch even though already have blia of basar in chalav and vice versa, however,
implication is that if was already nishbashel together and do it again, then would be no
issur.
B. Stiros in Pri Megadim

1. MZ 105:2 (way end) – quotes this issur v’heter, that if already cooked
together, nothing to talk about. However, basar mevushal and chalav mevushal, that is
definitely bishul bb”ch.
2. SD 87:2- candle that is made of a cooked mixture of bb”ch. Assur to use it for
ner channuka b/c violating issur bishul bb”ch, from Eliyahu Zuta (seems to contradict
above that once already cooked together, no bishul achar bishul)!?
**Sefer Pri Hadar points out this stira, but brings a kasuv hashilishi: O”ch 573 (Eishel
Avraham): by hilchos channuka, where says that if already cooked together once, no
further issur.
C. ‫רע"א‬: quotes this Issur v’heter as well: Already cooked together, no further issur.
D. Pleisi 87:13 (above) - even cooking together again would be assur.
10
 Maadanei Asher- This machlokes depends on question of whether issur bb”ch is an

issur yetziras bb”ch or just peula of bishul, no matter how many times it is done.
E. Pischei Teshuva 87:4- Shaar Ephraim: cooked butter in meat pot ben yomo, assur to
use as candle for house b/c getting hanaa from bb”ch, and even for ner channuka no good
b/c since assur b’hanaa, has din sreifa, so al pi din has no ‫( שיעור‬kitutei michtas shiuro),
so can’t be used, [but presumably no problem of bishul bb”ch b/c already mevushal
together.]
[Lev Avraham- kitutei michtat shiurei doesn’t apply to ner channuka b/c by ner
channuka don’t need physical ‫ שיעור‬of oil, just need there to be ½ hr of burning and that
we got. (‫ משא"כ‬by lulav of ir hanidachas which needs to have a certain size/‫שיעור‬, which
we say halachically it doesn’t have). ]
**Pri Megadim quotes shaar Ephraim as well, but says it as it being mutar, Pt thinks he
didn’t understand it correctly.
F. ‫’רע"א‬s chidush: Psik Reisha L’she’avar, and it’s relevance to our case:
1. ‫רע"א‬: Lichora, the stoker is eino michavein to be mivashel the non-Jew’s food.
(Could be had kavana for the vegetables and not the bb’ch in the pot) Also, not psik
reisha on bishul bb”ch b/c not sure if there’s bb’ch in there. Says this isn’t true b/c davka
by safeik about what it going to happen in the future, that’s called dse”m and not psik
reisha. However, when have safeik about what a metzius is now, what happened in the
past, can’t call that a dse”m, ela safeik psik reisha lisha’avar. B/c if there is bb”ch in
there, then my stoking is definitely a p”r. This explains why Rama was concerned even
though there is no kavana for bishul. (Trumas haDeshen- michavein to warm house, not
for bb”ch)
2. Taz in O”ch says can close box on shabbos, even though safeik if there are
bugs in there (tzad) b/c you don’t care about the bugs. Thinks that call this dse”m and
not psik reisha as long as there is some safeik, whether lisha’avar or l’haba. Beiur
Halacha found a ‫ רמב"ן‬who seems to agree with the Taz, about pouring hot water into
metal kli, even though it will cause tzeiruf on the kli, says it’s mutar b/c don’t have
kavana (‫ רע"א‬himself quotes this Taz).
III. Chumra #2- Water that has taam basar mixed with water with taam chalav
A. Mahari Weill- washed fleishig dishes in water and then milchig dishes in other water
and mix them together, can’t feed to your animal b/c getting hanaa from bb”ch.
B. Aruch HaShulchan 33- obviously, water have to all be kli rishon, and there has to be
mamashus of basar and chalav in the keilim, which is very rachok to have both of these
pratim, that’s why this is chumra b’alma.
C. Rama quotes this din
1. Shach 19- water has to be roseiach during all of the stages for there to be a
problem.
IV. Chumra #3- shampoo made w/ bb”ch
11
A. Maharil p. 524- would make shampoo by taking ashes from stove, put in kli with
water, and mivashel it, don’t use that kli for any other food without doing hagala on the
kli first.
B. Rama quotes this din.
1. Shach 20- there isn’t a problem of using the shampoo itself b/c not being
nehene from guf ha’issur.
C. Aruch haShulchan 33- all burnt up anyways. And even though ‫ 'רמ‬holds that nt”l
assur by bb”ch, that’s only when already created as bb”ch and then becomes lifgam, but
when it is two things are lifgam and put them together, bb’ch is never created. That’s
why this is only chumra b’alma.
D. Chavas Daas- reason not getting hanaa from the bb”ch is b/c don’t say Chanan by
issur hanaa midirabanan.
V. Chumra #4- Using kdeiros stored in beis haChoref

A. Mahari Weill- keep water ketels in the oven, are there when cook meat and when
cook milk. These ketels are assur to use for meat or milk b/c prob have bb”ch in them.
B. Aruch HaShulchan- this is also only chashasha b’alma, and only chumros.
C. Also quoted by Rama.
13 /2.18.08 -#5 ‫ שיעור‬Adar I 5768

Different kinds of bishul (Bb”ch, Shabbos, Bishul Akum)
I. Different kinds of Bishul and ‫ נ"מ‬lihalacha

A. Mishna Shabbos 38B- Anshei Tverya took cold water pipe and ran it through chamei
tverya to warm up water in the pipe. Question: Is this water mutar to use on Shabbos?
1. Gm 39A- No Mach by Fire- assur, or by Sun- mutar. Mach by Toldos
HaChama- are we gozer atu toldos ha’or?  Limaaseh, we assume that we are gozer
midirabanan.
2. ‫רש"י‬- Why is chama mutar: B/c ein derech bishul b’kach, and weren’t gozer on
chama b/c won’t come to mix up with ohr b/c see the sun.
II. Three pshatim in ‫’רש"י‬s Ein Derech Bishul B’Kach

**Kasha on ‫רש"י‬: Ein derech b’kach usually lowers issur from doraysa to dirabanan, not
mutar ligamrei?!
A. Eglei Tal Meleches Ofe 44- Makes chiluk btwn shinui in the naaseh and shinui in the
oseh. By Shabbos, if action is done in different way, since result is the same, change in
action knocks it down to dirabanan but not mutar ligamrei b/c limaaseh the result is still
the same. However, by bishul b’chama, since we know yesh shvach eitzim b’pas, we’ll
also say yesh shvach chama b’pas, and the bishul is qualitatively different, and that isn’t
bishul at all, and it’s mutar ligamrei. (Ex- Ksivas Get w/ left hand vs Korban Pesach
Mevushal in Chamei Tverya)
B. Igros Moshe O”Ch 3:52 (1971) - B’inyan Microwaves. Normally assume tolda is
similar in result, but different in action. So why isn’t chama a tolda, and should be issur
12
doraysa? Explains that since not derech bishul b/c would never choose chama, would
only choose chama if didn’t have ability to use eish, it’s not an equal substitute, not
considered bishul at all.
A microwave, he writes, is really as good as an oven, and ppl just don’t use them
as much b/c ppl don’t have them. But really they’re even better. Therefore, thinks it’s a
tolda of ohr b/c would choose it just as much, if not more than your oven. So he thinks
microwaves are bishul doraysa on shabbos.
**R’ Moshe is assuming that the result of the microwave is the same as regular cooking.
Definitely true that it’s quicker. But if one argued that it’s not as good as an oven, maybe
would be more room to be meikil. Maybe Eglei Tal would call it shinui in the naaseh.
C. Minchas Shlomo (R’ S.Z.A.) Siman 12, footnote 4- Even if would be derech to use
the sun, like with solar panels (dud shemesh), still would be mutar (? Be mivarer, b/c he
uses lashon “patur”). By chamei tverya, even though it was derech to do it, the only
question gm wanted to know was is this chama or is this eish, but whether it was the
derech or not didn’t seem to bother anyone. Ela mai, only question is whether this is eish
or not (and apparently pshat in Ein Derech bishul b’kach is that the sun simply is not
considered cooking). So R’ Shlomo Zalman would seem to say that Microwave is mutar
(Why aren’t we assuming it’s toldos hachama?).
**‫ נ"מ‬in terms of chole, maybe should use microwave to warm things up instead of fire
b/c maybe mutar (or only dirabanan with the buttons, etc.)
III. Alternative forms of Bishul by Shabbos and Bb”ch

A. Yerushalmi Nedarim 20A- want to know status of smoking, frying, and bishul
b’chamei tverya l’inyan: Nedarim, Bishul Akum, Bishul b’shabbos, Bb”ch, Maasros
(achilas arai mutar before take trumas umaasros)? Ibayei d’lo ifshita.
Hat a
B. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:6- If cook bb”ch with smoke, chamei tverya, etc. don’t get malkus, but
assur to do.
1. ‫מ"מ‬- Treated as ibayei d’lo ifshita, so have to be machmir in all directions b/c
it’s doraysa.
C. Shulchan Aruch 87:6- Paskens like the ‫'רמ‬. Machmir altz safeik.
D. Pri Chadash- Only ibayei d’lo ifshita in Nedarim, but in Yerushalmi Shabbos they
pasken that it’s assur mishum bishul b’shabbos. Im kein, ‫ הה"נ‬by bb”ch, should get
malkus!?
IV. What about Bishul Akum?

A. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 17:17- Don’t say meliach k’roseiach and no problem of ashein by bishul
akum (only issur dirabanan and say safeik dirabanan likula).
*Lichora, the Pri Chadash would say this is assur as well b/c thinks gm was machria, but
we don’t assume this way limaaseh.
13
B. Shulchan Aruch YD 113:13- Don’t say meliach k’roseiach, no problem of meushan

by bishul akum. Rama- also don’t say kavush k’mevushal.
C. Shut Shem Aryeh Siman 22- Shoel asks, is steam same as meushan to be mutar altz
bishul akum when it comes to making sugar? Answers, no, not the same thing. Steam is
mamash toldas ha’eish, ‫ משא"כ‬by smoke.
 R’ Gedalya Berger- explained the chiluk: Fire isn’t heating up smoke, just
smoke comes out while fire comes out, ‫ משא"כ‬by steam, where the steam is mamash
heated up by the fire.
D. Yabia Omer 5:9- Doesn’t think Shem Aryeh is correct, ela should be treated as
meushan and both not included in gzeiras chachamim.
(One issue, though, is that the tuna is sitting in water and becoming mevushal in water
from the steam. Not sure if R’ Simon thought this was to be more meikil or more
machmir).
E. Shut Vayivarech David (R’ Dovid Harfunes) - has a diyun whether or not we say
that there is problem of bishul akum in microwaves. Not machria either way.
**R’ Simon doesn’t think the kula to allow the goy to put egg and cheese in mircrowave
at Dunkin Donuts is such a great kula, as long as the egg is really raw.
14 /2.20.08 -#6 ‫ שיעור‬Adar I (Purim Katan)

B’inyan Beitzim and Mei Chalav
We generally assume that eggs are pareve, but when it first comes into existence it’s part
of the chicken and is fleishig, and at some point it becomes its own entity. The question
is what is the cut-off point?
Gm Eruvin 62B- Talking about paskening shaylas in the area where your Rebbi is
around. Gm says that someone wouldn’t pasken as long as his Rebbi, R’ Huna was
around, and wouldn’t even pasken about eating an egg w/ yogurt. Such a pashut question
he wouldn’t even answer.
‫ 'תוס‬Afilu- obviously not talking about regular eggs b/c that’s not even a shayla. Ela,
talking about when you shecht a chicken and find beitzim inside, which is mutar to eat
with milk, like we know from gm Beitza 7A. But this question he wouldn’t answer.
Gm Beitza 7A- Shecht chicken and find betzim gmuros, mutar to eat them with chalav.
R’ Yaakov- if they are meuros b’giddim, then still assur (presumably, even though the
egg is fully formed).
What is gmuros?
1- 6 ‫רש"י‬b- “Gmuros” = even if only the yolk (chelmon), but not the white (chelbon) had
come to be, still considered gmuros.
14
2- 84 3:3 ‫רשב"א‬b- Gmuros = has to have both the chelbon and chelmon, even though
still meuros b’giddim, already considered separate entity. But if only has chelmon, still
part of chicken. 3- Quotes yesh omrim- need yolk, white, and shell to be formed.
Mordechai- Rashbam: has to be nigmar ligamrei, meaning having the klipa as well.
Mishna Eiduyos 5:1- 6 places where Beis Hillel is machmir and Beis Shamai was
Meikil. One case, Beitzas Neveila: Is the egg inside considered neveila?
- Beis Shamai: If it looks like eggs that are sold in the shuk, mutar. If not, neveila.
Bartenura: meaning, the shell is already hard, etc.
- Beis Hillel: Always assur.
But ku’a modim that beitza treifa is assura b/c it was gdeila b’issur.
**Sounds like Beis Hillel holds that as long as its embedded inside, still part of the
chicken? Im kein, why aren’t all beitzim found inside chickens considered meat?!
‫ 'תוס‬Beitza 6b dh Beitzim- asks this kasha: 1) Since basar oaf and chalav is only
midirabanan, ‫ משא"כ‬neveila which is din doraysa. So when it comes to doraysa’s beis
hillel wants to be machmir, but by din doraysa, machmir. And asks, why does the gm
eruvin consider this such a simple shayla if R’ Yaakov argues? Answers that really
everyone agrees that they’re mutar, and by neveila, were gozer atu beitza treifa, ‫ משא"כ‬by
any other din, no need for gzeira.
‫ 'תוס‬Chullin 58A- also has this discussion, brings ‫ר"ת‬: beitzas neveila comes from davar
ha’assur. But by bb”ch, each one on its own is mutar, so more room to be meikil b/c
really need it to really be basar to make bb”ch.
Shulchan Aruch 87:5- Beitzim found in ofos, if they have chelbon and chelmon, even
though meuros b’giddim, mutar to eat with chalav. Paskens like the ‫רשב"א‬. And if ate it
alone, no need to wait before eating milchigs, no hadacha and no kinuach hape.
Shach 9- Have din that if hit chicken on its tail and an egg comes out, those
beitzim are considered ever min hachai, even though they have chelbon and chelmon. Im
kein, sounds like they are still basar, so why can you eat them b’chalav if they were taken
out after shechita?! Answers similar teretz ‫ 'תוס‬used, since bb”ch by oaf is only
dirabanan, can be meikil. But by doraysa of ever min hachai, we are more worried and
assur even when has chelbon and chelmon. And also brings teretz that bb”ch is bringing
two dvarim heterim together. But then gives another teretz, just b/c something is ever
min hachai, doesn’t mean that it has din basar, milk itself would have been ever min
hachai had we not had pasuk of “eretz zavas chalav udvash”!
Waiting between eating this beitza and milk?

Orchos Chaim-
Pri Chadash 87:10*- Doesn’t like din that don’t have to wait, which comes from Orchos
Chaim, b/c oaf tamei and eat the egg, get malkus, din doraysa. Im kein, kol d’tikkun
k’ein doraysa tikkun, and shouldn’t be meikil like the mechaber.
15
Yad Yehuda 87:8- quotes pri chadash, but doesn’t like it. B/c even though it’s called
basar l’inyan tuma and treifus, but the reasons for waiting btwn basar and chalav is b/c of
the taam that stays in mouth or basar left in teeth, and here there is no taam basar, and
even the egg is even softer than regular cheese, so no need to wait.
Hagahos Shaarei Dura dinei Beitzim- Women are noheig to be machmir, by any eggs
that were found inside the chicken not to cook them with milk, and could be b/c the gm
says that shouldn’t pasken likula by this din in the gm, so the poskim wouldn’t pasken on
this shayla, so they were machmir, and would be moleiach it like basar.
Rama 75:1- beitzim found inside that the chelbon isn’t nigmar, should be moleiach, and
can be moleiach with basar. And if it has chelbon, or even when has hard shell, there is
minhag to be moleiach, but shouldn’t be moleiach with basar (b/c maybe nothing in there
and will be boleia dam). But bidideved ein lachush.
Bach 87:2- If put together chashash that oaf and chalav is doraysa, and teretz of Bahag
that we are machmir by doraysas, then should be machmir by bb”ch as well. Im kein,
makes sense to have this minhag to be moleiach all eggs found in chickens. (see inside,
may have missed something).
Rav Soloveitchik- also gives explanation to this minhag (see inside).

R’ Schechter- discussion about enzymes (fill in as well, R’ Simon didn’t really talk
about it).
Mei Chalav
When make cheese out of milk, put rennet into the milk, some of the milk curdles into
what becomes cheese and then there is some liquid left over, called Whey. Question, does
this have the status of milk or no longer? If take the Whey, and separate within it, the
white from the liquid, what’s the status of that liquid?
Gm Chullin 114A- mivashel b’mei chalav is patur.

‫רש"י‬- called mishka in Old French. ‫ רש"י‬in Psachim 42A says that Mishka is nisyubei
d’chalba, which is the Whey. So ‫ רש"י‬thinks that the Whey itself is mei chalav.
‫ רא"ש‬Chullin 8:51- Mei Chalav is not Whey but that which comes out after separate
Whey, the water that comes out is mei chalav. And ‫ 'רמ‬says that could be that Mei
Chalav is assur to eat b/c no longer has the ptur of ever min hachai b/c not milk anymore
but still ever min hachai.
Shulchan Aruch 87:8- quotes ‫ רא"ש‬that nisyubei chalav is assur midoraysa, and real mei
chalav is what comes out when break down the Whey.
**not clear what Mechaber means when he quotes one shita as yesh mi sheomer.
Limaaseh, we treat Whey like milk.
#7 ‫שיעור‬- Chalav B’ohr haKeiva v’Davar HaMaamid (Intro to Chalav Akum)

*What’s the status of milk found in the stomach of the animal? Is it regular milk, or no,
it’s all digested in the acids of the stomach, and not milk at all?
**When make cheese, either use the enzyme found in this milk, or from the lining of the
stomach of a cow, goyim often used neveila cows, problem.
16
I. Status of Keiva
A. Gm Chullin 115B- Source for the discussion of milk found in stomach (keiva), and
lining of stomach itself (ohr haKeiva).
B. 3 Shitos in rishonim:
1. ‫רש"י‬: All milk found in the stomach is chalav mamash, even if it coagulated.
Salting it inside the stomach, assurs the milk. And if would use this milk as the maamid
for your cheese, the cheese would be assur. Original girsa, without the parentheses.
2. ‫רמ‬/‫'רי"ף‬- All milk in the stomach is pirsha b’alma, considered digested, no
shem chalav, and could use this milk as your maamid to make cheese.
-‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:15- if cook the stomach with the chalav inside is mutar b/c not
chalav, ela tinofes. So doesn’t make bb’ch.
3. ‫ר"ת‬- Milk in liquid form (tzalul) retains status of milk. If it’s all coagulated
(karush), then not milk at all.
C. Shulchan Aruch 87:9-

1. Mechaber: Chalav in the keiva isn’t milk at all, all mutar (‫רי"ף‬/ '‫)רמ‬, but yesh
mi sheoser.
2. Rama: we are noheig this way lichumra.
(a) Shach 25- “Yesh mi sheoser” is ‫ר"ת‬, not ‫רש"י‬. Just assuring milk that
is tzalul. Rama is saying that by karush mutar even lichatchila, and by tzalul, assur even
bidieved.
(i) Pri Megadim SD 25- Shach knows Rama isn’t talking about
‫ רש"י‬b/c in siman 81 by beheima ksheira sheyanka me’treifa quotes ‫רי"ף‬/'‫ רמ‬and ‫ר"ת‬,
doesn’t quote ‫רש"י‬, see that he isn’t goreis his shita.
D. SA 87:10-
1. Mechaber: If left milk in stomach for a day or were moleiach it in the stomach,
assur to be maamid with it (davar hamaamid isn’t batel). Strange b/c he paskened like
the ‫ 'רמ‬and the ‫רי"ף‬.
(a) Shach 29- Talking lichatchila b/c in end, even if its pirsha b’alma, still
gets taam when its sitting in the stomach, so lichatchila still shouldn’t use it as a maamid
b/c it has taam basar in it now.
2. Rama: Lichatchila shouldn’t put the milk in the stomach until it has cooled
down b/c the milk in there is very sharp tasting, but bidieved don’t have to be choshesh
until your nimlach or koveish it in the stomach. And what if you were maamid with this
chalav? If it’s tzalul, assurs all the milk unless there is 60, and if karush, batel even
without 60.
(a) Shach 30- Isn’t davar hamaamid eino batel!? There are shitos that
hold that davar hamaamid is batel b’60, this is how the ‫ טור‬holds. But Rama doesn’t hold
like that. So answers that for davar hamaamid, has to be mamash issur machmas atzmo,
and especially here where the bb”ch is only midirabanan b/c it was only from meliach or
kavush (even though for other dinim consider bb”ch issur machmas atzmos as well
[Gilyon Maharsha 18]).
E. SA 87:11-
17
1. Mechaber: if were maamid cheese with ohr keiva of ksheira, only mutar if
have 60 kineged the ohr keiva. But if use neveila or treifa, the cheese is assur bkol shehu
(b/c the maamid is issur machmas atzmo, so never batel).
2. Rama- Only if have one davar hamaamid and it is assur. But if have two, one
assur and one mutar, say ze v’ze gorem and it’s mutar if don’t have 60.
[*Why isn’t all cheese bb”ch, if using rennet of stomach and we know davar hamaamid is
eino batel? B/c only say davar hamaamid eino batel if it’s assur bifnei atzmo, and this
stomach is mutar meat. So just need 60. So why isn’t this emi”l? Shut 207 ‫רע"א‬.]
II. Chalav Shechuta

A. Gm Chullin 113B- Chaleiv imo, and not chalav shechuta.
B. Is milk found in keiva chalav shechuta?

1. Pri Chadash 87:22- No. ‫ רש"י‬had ruach hakodesh and keiva is chalav gamur.
Beis Yosef is wrong (holds like ‫רמ‬/‫)'רי"ף‬.
2. Aruch HaShulchan 87:35- Yes. Milk in the stomach is also chalav shechuta,
and whole discussion about kevia is only midirabanan. Very strange svara (Minchas
Chinuch says this as well). Most assume like Pri Chadash.
C. Chidushei 13 ‫רע"א‬- Mesupak about the milk of a ben pakua, considered shechted, so
maybe milk in its utter when it grows up is always chalav shechuta. Brings raya from gm
Bechoros: Brings rayas that chalav is mutar b/c Torah had assured bb”ch, so must be that
separately they are mutar. ‫ רע"א‬says this raya is not nec a raya b/c maybe chalav is assur,
and need pasuk for bb”ch b/c even if chalav is assur, chalav of ben pakua is going to be
mutar. However, it is a raya, so must be that really chalav of ben pakua isn’t chalav, So
pasuk must be talking about reg milk. But says ‫ צ"ע‬lidina.
Also has safeik about chalav treifa, is it called chalav for bb”ch b/c know that treifa can’t
give birth, so does that make it not reuya likros eim, however brings gm Sanhedrin that
even person who can impregnate woman is called av, even if doesn’t give birth, so maybe
even though can’t give birth, but could become pregnant, still called eim.
III. Geder of Davar HaMaamid (Doraysa or Dirabanan?)

A. Pri Megadim Shaar Taaroves- Davar hamaamid is viewed midirabanan as eino batel
b/c since it has such an influence, can’t call that batel. Issur V’heter says this way as
well.
B. Gm AZ 35A- since it’s maamid the item, k’ilu the issur is b’ein. Obviously, though,
not really b’ein.
C. 442 ‫טור‬- person who was maamid the cheese with vinegar (chametz), and Raavan
assured to eat it on Pesach and said can’t even have it in your house, considered b’ein.
1. Shulchan Aruch 442:5- quotes this din.
(a) Magen Avraham 9- Mashma that ‫ טור‬thinks this is even issur doraysa
b/c he assurs you to even keep it in your house.
18
(b) Machtzis haShekel 9- ‫ טור‬holds that something that’s only assur

midirabanan can keep in your house, so that was the MA’s raya that the ‫ טור‬seems to
think this is din dirabanan.
21 /2.27.08 -#8 ‫ שיעור‬Adar I 5768

Gvinas Akum
*Din of gvinas akum is different from chalav yisrael. Gm AZ 35B- Issur of chalav Akum
is when goy milks cow and Ein Yisrael Ro’eihu b/c of chashash that the goy added milk
of beheima temeia, but as long as Jew watches, no problem. Issur of Gvinas Akum
seems to have no such caveat.
I. Source of Issur, shitos haRishonim

A. Gm AZ 29B/35A-B - Reasons for gzeira of gvinas Akum:
1. Goyim generally use keivas neveila as maamid for their cheese.
2. Ryb”l- goyim kept their cheese exposed and maybe snake left poison in there.
3. They would shmeer their cheese with pig fat.
4. Use non-kosher vinegar as maamid.
5. Use sap of orla trees as maamid.
II. Scope of the Issur (Discussing hard cheese [not cottage cheese, cream cheese, etc.])
A. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 3:12-14, 16:
1. Issur Gvinas Akum is b/c of chashash that use ohr keivas neveila as maamid,
and davar hamaamid eino batel.
2. Even if the maamid is grass, mei peiros, etc. still assur b/c Chazal assured all
gvinas akum and get makus mardus. (Davar sheB’Minyan).
[Bizman haze, most hard cheeses are made with artificial rennet.]
-- ‫ רשב"א‬thb 3:6 90A- Agrees with ‫'רמ‬. Even in places where use flowers and other
things as maaamidim, gvina remains assur b/c e/thing assured in mishnas ein maamidin,
are davar shebiminyan, and gzeira stands even if reason is gone.
B. 35 '‫תוס‬A Dh Chada- there are places where Jews eat gvinas akum b/c they use
flowers as the maamid. And Geonei Narvona allowed this as well in their town for the
same reason. Apparently didn’t think it was davar shebiminyan.
C. ‫ מאירי‬AZ (29 or 35?) - Even those who assur cheese made with flowers and grass
would be mode that in place where everyone does it b’heter, that no issur gvinas akum
(even the ‫)'רמ‬.
III. Psak ha’Achronim

A. SA YD 115:2-
1. Mechaber: assured gvinas akum since use ohr keivas neveila, and even if use
grass as maamid, assur.
19
2. Rama: This is the minhag, and ein lifrotz geder, except for places where they
have had minhag for years to be meikil. Adds that if Jew sees the chaliva and the
making of the cheese, not called gvinas akum. Bidieved, even if sees just the making of
the cheese, that’s enough b/c assume that the milk is kosher if he’s making cheese out of
it b/c can’t make cheese out of non-kosher milk.
(a) This Rama comes from the Aguda on Shabbos (perek Shoel) - If
person wants to buy cheese from goy and goy is making it on shabbos and Yisrael sees
and doesn’t say anything (but goy understands on his own that Jew wants to buy that
which he is making), mutar, even though it’s a davar mechuar (b/c like doing business on
Shabbos). **See that as long as have Yisrael roe, no longer gvinas akum.
(b) Shach 20- Argues on Rama: This discussion is about masa umatan
b’Shabbos. And ‫אה"נ‬, still considered gvinas akum, just considered a good sale, and now
Jew could sell it to a goy after Shabbos. But you can’t eat it. Also, the Mordechai (kol
habasar) says b’feirush that seeing is not enough. And even in Mishna AZ when talks
about Chalav Akum says it’s b/c ein yisrael roehu, and doesn’t say this by Gvinas Akum,
mashma that reiya doesn’t help. So he gives two ways out of the problem:
(i) Jew places the rennet in the milk (Maharam Merutenberg)
(ii) Jew owns the ingredients, even if goy does all the work.
B/c if its davar shebiminyan and even with grass is assur, so why does seeing it help?
The goy is still making it or he still owns it!
[‫ 'רמ‬Peirush Mishnayos AZ perek sheini- As long as see it with your own eyes, not
gvinas akum (lichora, agreeing with the Rama). Funny, b/c ‫ 'רמ‬was one who said this is
davar shebiminyan, and even with grass it’s assur. Maybe thought the gzeira didn’t apply
in this case. Also, ‫ 'רמ‬in PM isn’t always consistent with the Yad haChazaka]
**The OU follows the ‫ש"ך‬, the mashgiach presses the button which releases the davar
hamaamid (This is why so many hard cheeses are so expensive b/c have to have
mashgiach there all the time to press the button).
B. R’ Henken (Eidus LiYisrael p. 176)- Brings from Aruch HaShulchan and others that
even rennet of neveila is mutar to use as maamid when its all dried out (and especially if
use it with other things so that it’s zev’ze goreim). And says even Shach 87 who says that
lichatchila shouldn’t do this, would be mode if used other ingredients to make it zev’ze
goreim. But this doesn’t get around problem of gvinas akum, just makes it like asavim
b’alma. So would still need appropriate measures (Jew do it or own it).
C. R’ Schachter from R’ Solovetchik (Peninei HaRav 153) - Rav used to eat cheese
made out of kosher ingredients (Kraft), and would tell the talmidim this way as well, but
wouldn’t pasken this way for baala batim. But strange b/c it seems against the ‫ 'רמ‬and
against the Rama. Unless you assume the ‫ מאירי‬is correct and even ‫ 'רמ‬was mode when
almost everyone uses artificial ingredients. Or if he had mesorah like the Chachmei
Narvona.
IV. What about Soft Cheeses (Cottage Cheese, maybe Yogurt and Cream Cheese)?
20
**Soft cheeses would become cheese on their own if its hot enough and you leave it for a
while, only put in a maamid in order to speed up the process
A. Aruch haShulchan 115:16- Even soft cheeses are included in the gzeira, even though
there is no maamid used in soft cheese. Gzeira bimkomo omed.
B. Igros Moshe YD 2:48- Has reasons to say that cottage cheese is not included in the
gzeira b/c even though they use rennet, don’t need it at all, maybe ze v’ze gorem, and
maybe not even b/c put in so little. However, raises problem that they put milk in it, and
only way to rely on this is that assume kula by chalav akum that chalav of the companies
is mutar. But if not, then have a problem altz chalav yisrael as well. At the end, tells R’
Schwab that he doesn’t have to be moche against those who eat cottage cheese w/
hashgacha which assumes that it isn’t bichlal the gzeira, but also says shouldn’t be
mifarseim that it’s mutar (mutav sheyihiyu shog’gim).
*So those who are makpid for chalav yisrael cheese blintzes/cottage cheese are being
machmir for the Aruch HaShulchan, the yesh lihachmir in R’ Moshe, or they keep chalav
yisrael, like R’ Moshe mentions at the end of his teshuva.
- The OU doesn’t send a mashgiach temidi for soft cheeses. They are relying on this
Igros Moshe.
C. Igros Moshe YD 1:50- Can’t just give the non-Jew a kosher enzyme and tell him to
use it, have to watch him put it in, especially nowadays where lots of non-Jews make the
gvina from rennet and can’t trust them. However, don’t have to put it in b/c we assume
like the Rama, not the Shach. And if Jew owns the beheimos, even just b’schirus (rents
them)or the Jew says he wants to buy a certain amount of the cheese and it becomes like
his during the time its being made, that’s good even acc to the Shach. And in terms of
Cream Cheese, says there are tzdadim likan ulikan, and Eini omer baze lo heter v’lo
issur, v’tov lihachmir, but don’t have to be moche on those who eat it.
#8.5 ‫ שיעור‬- Od B’inyan Davar haMaamid

- Allowing use of rennet as long as have 60, why not violation of emi”l?
**2 Basic Mehalchim:
I. The din in Shulchan Aruch isn’t correct (Halacha, v’lo limaaseh):

- Several rishonim who hold that this din isn’t true. Just like there is din davar hamaamid
by neveila, issur machmas atzmo, also have din of davar hamaamid by other issurim as
well.
A. Gm AZ 35A- reason for issur of gvinas akum was b/c they use ohr keivas neveila.
1. ‫ 'תוס' )תוס‬chullin 116A as well)- why is the gm only worried about neveila,
what about even a ksheira, problem of bb”ch?! 2 possibilities in ‫'תוס‬:
(a) Asking our kasha, problem of davar hamaamid even by bb”ch
(b) Asking, ‫ אה"נ‬if there was 60 no problem, but maybe should be
chosheish that there’s no 60.
21
‫’'תוס‬s Answer: Neveila is issur doraysa, this bb”ch is only dirabanan b/c not derech
bishul. Whole situation is safeik, only worried about doraysa, but understanding of teretz
will depend on how you understand the kasha.
asks the same kasha.
**Seems more pashut to assume 1st mehalech b/c derech to make cheese is with a lot of
milk and very little keiva.
B. Those who hold that say davar hamaamid even when issur is not machmas atzmo:
1. Meiri AZ 35 – Yesh omrim that issur maamid even by basar shechuta, and gm
was only talking about the general situation by goyim which was to use neveila, but ‫אה"נ‬
with shechuta also a problem, just means that they use animals. (Dibra Torah B’hove).
2. ‫ 'תוס‬Rid AZ 35 – In first mahadura says that only say davar hamaamid by issur
machmas atzmo. In Mahadura Basra says opposite: Mishna Chullin 116B says that if
maamid with keiva ksheira, depends on nesinas taam. This means that they use the keiva
(which is pirsha b’alma) and ohr hakeiva together, is ze v’ze goreim, and mutar.
However, says the mishna, that if the stomach could do the job on it’s own, then not ze
v’ze goreim, and assura.
3. R’ Yerucham (sefer Toldos Adam v’Chava) - maamid in gvina is not batel.
4. Teshuvas Hagahos Maimonios- Only reason would have matired kosher
stomach, would be if there was milk in there which is pirsha b’alma and will have ze v’ze
goreim.
**Acc to these rishonim, no question of bitul issur lichatchila, b/c it’s taka assur
(However, didn’t make it to SA, except R’ Yerucham, quoted by BY).
C. SA 87:11–
1. Mechaber: If maamid cheese with ohr keivas ksheira, if there’s taam basar,
assur, if not, mutar, but if use neveila or treifa or beheima temeia oser b’kol shehu.
2. Rama: B/c only s/thing that is assur machmas atzmo has din of davar
hamaamid and isn’t batel even b’1000. However, if there’s another maamid with it
which is mutar, will be ze v’ze goreim and mutar, as long as have 60 kineged the issur.
(a) Shach 35 – says chiluk btwn neveila and bb”ch, that bb”ch isn’t assur
machmas atzmo, so batel b’60, ‫ משא"כ‬neveila, assur machmas atzmo, never batel,
considered b’ein. Maharshal thinks even neveila can be batel b’60, but ein dvarav
muchrachim.
**Limaaseh, we assume like most rishonim, not like ‫מאירי‬, R’ Yerucham, ‫ 'תוס‬rid, etc.
II. Teshuvas R’ Akiva Eiger- Din in shulchan aruch is correct, explains how it works.
A. ‫ 'תוס‬Nida 61B - Begged sheavad bo kilaim. Has din shaatnez. ‫'תוס‬: Why isn’t this
small string batel? Explains: Can’t say bitul unless have issur mixed in heter (similar to
‫ ר"ן‬that need clash of issur and heter). B/c by linen and wool, the rov is assur as much as
the miut as long as there is any mixture. *So how is there bitul basar in chalav!?!?
1. ‫ריטב"א‬/‫רא"ש‬- Bb”ch: Din of “derech bishul asra Torah”, and without that, no
issur in the first place. So ‫אה"נ‬, not really a din bitul, just that if no nesinas taam, nothing
to worry about in the first place.
22
(a) ** Shut ‫רע"א‬: the whole concept of ein mivatlin issur lichatchila
applies to not placing davar issur into davar heter, situations where there is bitul.
However, by bb”ch, no need for bitul, ela that if have 60, there’s no issur in the first
place.
In end, though, says that Poskim don’t seem to agree with this:
- 89:6 ‫ רמ"א‬- Kizayis chalav that fell into water, and batel in 60, now water falls into
meat. Even though the meat doesn’t have 60 kineged the chalav that fell into the water,
but milk was already nisbatel in the water, so no problem.
*22 ‫ש"ך‬- Toras Chatas: mutar lichatchila to pour milky water into the meat. This
clearly implies that this is only b/c it was nisbatel originally in the water. However,
putting the milk itself inside would be a problem!?
**Im kein, says ‫רע"א‬, must be that they assured bitul issur lichatchila by bb”ch as well
atu shaar issurim as a lo plug. But bothered b/c no raya from Gm like this.
- Also quotes Tzemach Tzedek- White wine which wasn’t as white as they wanted it to
be, b/c grapes were rotten, so doesn’t look nice, and want to mix some milk in there and
makes it whiter. Question is, ppl will go ahead and drink it while eating meat, so is there
a problem of doing this if there’s 60 kineged the wine. Quotes same discussion of Rama
and Toras Chatas that whole heter was only bidieved, once milk is already mixed in
water.
Maskana acc to ‫רע"א‬:

- 87:10 ‫רמ"א‬- sometimes dry out stomach and fill with chalav, mutar b/c since it’s dried
out, naaseh k’eitz b’alma. 33 ‫ש"ך‬- shouldn’t do lichatchila shema won’t dry out all the
way. Says ‫רע"א‬, since we dry out the stomach first anyways, not basar at all. And ‫אה"נ‬
the Shach said not to do this lichatchila, shema won’t do it ligamrei, but in our case, we
have 60, and not davar hamaamid, and prob don’t even say emi”l by bb”ch, and ligabei
that din we can assume that the stomach was dried out from before. And then he adds
“v’gam ein kavanaso livatel”.
III. Other options, assuming din in Shulchan Aruch is correct:

A. Aruch HaShulchan- Not problem of emi”l b/c no kavana to be mivatel, but to be
maamid the gvinos. And leaves with tzarich iyun lidina. But adds that with tzeiruf of
shitas ‫ רי"ף‬and ‫ 'רמ‬who hold that even chalav tzalul in keiva is mutar, yesh lihakeil.
B. Chasam Sofer 81- Ben Torah whose parnasa came from making cheese, and wanted
to do so with ohr keiva b/c if don’t use the ohr, not as good, and takes a long time. So he
would dry out the stomach, and then would re-wet it with water, and then extract juice
from the keiva and put that into the milk. Answers, have 60 already, and no din maamid
by bb”ch. And if want to be machmir for Mordechai and Hagahos Maimoni, I’ll tell you
as follows. Says always had shayla, when milk is sitting in the keiva, which is usually
more than 24hrs, should now be assur machmas atzmo, and then should taka be problem
of davar hamaamid. Answers, yeah, but that’s only midirabanan, like the Shach, so not
worried. But isn’t totally convinced b/c could be that gm was only talking about putting
enzyme inside, not an actual chaticha.
23
So says yesod: Taam K’ikar is when cook piece of meat, is taam k’ikar, but when
squeeze out juice of piece of meat, only assur altz mashkim hayotzim. But if have kosher
piece of meat and take juices out, that is only meat midirabanan, b/c not taam k’ikar, and
no din mashkim hayotzim. Im kein, now when have kavush, which is only midirabanan
and the enzyme is not really meat, so it’s trei dirabanans. So quotes Taz Siman 90, if are
kavush meat in chalav shechuta, mutar b/c it’s trei dirabanan. So says same thing here.
And in terms of other shitos by davar hamaamid, so take some of the milk inside which is
pirsha b’alma, and now have ze v’ze goreim. And even though shouldn’t do that
lichatchila, since everything is dirabanans, no problem.
#9 ‫שיעור‬- Issur Haalas Basar Im Chalav
I. Source of the Issur

A. Mishna Chullin 103B- All basar is assur to be mivashel with chalav, and assur to put
on table with chalav.
1. ‫רש"י‬- afraid might eat them together, will touch and be boleia one from
another.
B. Gm Chullin 104A- R’ Yosef makes diyuk that chicken and milk must be bb”ch
doraysa b/c otherwise how could you make such a gzeira on something that’s only issur
dirabanan!? In end, gm concludes that really it’s all one big gzeira shema will put meat
and milk in boiling kli rishon.
1. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:20- Says it’s gzeira mishum hergel aveira, maybe will come to eat
one with the other, even though the whole issur of chicken and milk is only midirabanan.
*But isn’t this against the gm which assumes that its shema will put in ilfas rishon, not
eating together b/c can’t do that b/c of gzeira ligzeira!?
(a) Pleisi 88:1- asks this kasha, and explains that ‫ 'רמ‬assumes that ilfas
rishon is only an answer acc to R’ Yosef, but acc to Abaye that even though it’s issur
dirabanan, nevertheless we were gozer, the issur is still just atu hergel aveira/eating
together.
2. 36 ‫ר"ן‬B/37A- Assured halaa in order to be michazeik gzeiras achila, w/out it,
gzeira on achila would fall apart.
II. What harchakos have to be made?

A. Mishna Chullin 107B- Mutar to pack meat and cheese in the same bag as long as they
don’t touch. RSBG: Two ppl staying at an Inn can eat at same table, one basar, one
chalav, and no need to be choshesh. Gm- this is only if they don’t know each other, and
only thing that’s assur is k’ein tfisa achas.
1. ‫ 'תוס‬K’ein- 2 pshatim:
(a) Right next to eachother, nothing separating them, but if have a
separation, no problem.
24
(b) As long as they know eachother, can’t eat near eachother.
2. Rashash on Mishna 103B- Mishna begins with lashon “chalav” and then says
“gvina”. Explains: If have cup of milk on table with meat, no problem b/c since it’s in a
container, that’s not considered k’ein tfisa achas.
3. Badei HaShulchan 88 Biurim Dh Al Shulchan- thinks cup of milk is assur.

And even though ‫ רש"י‬had chashash of foods touching and that won’t happen here, acc to
‫ר"ן‬, worried about putting both in mouth, that would still apply. Says ‫הה"נ‬, if have TV
dinner which is still in the box, doesn’t make it second tfisa, and still assur.
4. R’ Simon: Baby bottle, adults won’t drink from this bottle, but at the same
time, could be lo plug. (lichora, acc to Badei haShulchan who wants to be machmir even
by gvina and raw meat b/c it’s neechal al yidei hadchak, baby bottle would be even
worse, my svara, R’ Simon didn’t say this).
B. Gm Nedarim 41B- Noder not to get hanaa from someone allowed to eat on same
table.
1. ‫רא"ש‬- since he was noder not to get hanaa from him, lichora they don’t like
each other, so if two strangers no issur of eating together, lichora, kal v’chomer for these
two.
C. Does this issur apply to shaar issurim?

1. 32 ‫ר"ן‬B- Only a din by bb”ch b/c ragil to eat both the basar and the chalav, so
really may come to eat it. But not worried you might eat the neveila by accident. Also
bread that was cooked in oven with meat, can’t eat with sour cream, not b/c of reicha
milsa but as extra harchaka, another that we have by bb”ch, but not by shaar issurim.
2. Shut 177 ‫רשב"א‬- Letting goy into house with his chametz, and eating on same
table: - No problem of bal yeirae as long as it belongs to non-Jew, just don’t be mikabel
achrayus (Jew’s chametz could taka be a problem to even let him in the house).
Quotes gm Pesachim 6 that don’t need mechitza of 10 tefachim so won’t come to eat it,
unless its mufkad etzlo, and especially not here b/c won’t eat non-Jew’s chametz when
he’s standing there. However, still assur on same table b/c still dangerous b/c know
eachother, and even separate tablecloths no good b/c chametz is assur b’mashehu.
3. Orchos Chaim Hilchos Chametz UMatza 45- thinks that even al shulchan
echad not a problem to eat with goy.
D. 88:1/2 ‫שו"ע‬-
‫מחבר‬- Even basar chaya and oaf is assur to put on same table with chalav, shema
will come to eat them together, but only eating table, on the counter no issur. But this is
only problem if they know each other, even if makpid one on the other, but if don’t know
each other, or if know each other but make a heker, no issur.
‫ – רמ"א‬Bread can’t count as a heker if they’re both eating from it, but can use kli
for drinking as long as not derech to be on the table, even if drinking from it, and kol
shekein some other kli (menorah, etc.). But should be careful not to drink from same kli
b/c food gets stuck on it. And shouldn’t eat from same bread at all, and each person
should have own salt dish.
25
2 ‫ש"ך‬- quotes ‫ ר"ן‬and ‫רא"ש‬. Not arguing b/c both cases where food is b’etzem mutar and
lo bdilei inshei minei, so assur w/out heker. Also quotes Orchos Chaim that can goy can
eat chametz at table w/ Jew, against ‫רשב"א‬, also fits svara of ‫ ר"ן‬and ‫רא"ש‬, lo bdilei inshei
minei, so only mutar b/c like shnei achsianaim.
III. Does heker work for person alone?

A. Gm Shabbos 13A- Woman in Nida sleeping in same bed with her husband, if they are
wearing clothing. By nida, have deios, ppl each knows they have to watch out, and there
is shinui that they are fully dressed, ‫ משא"כ‬bb”ch, only deios, no shinui (if no heker). In
end, no conclusion and we pasken lichumra by nida.
1. Darkei Teshuva 88 –
(a) Discussion of person who is w/in his 6 hours of meat, sitting at table
with someone eating cheese. At first, michaleik that if person knows you’re within your
6 hrs, then no problem. Then says, if eating, derech is to eat from the other guy, maybe
should assur, but in end brings many who say this is extra chumra not quoted by chazal.
(b) Quotes Sefer Beged Lilbosh, who says that heker only works
if have heker and shnei deios, but person eating on table by himself, heker won’t help.
B. What if have a shomer?

1. 88:1 ‫רע"א‬- Gan HaMelech: having a shomer is not going to help b/c the
gzeiras chazal was not to place them on the same table.
2. Lev Aryeh- Didn’t Avraham Avinu violate issur of haalaa? He put chema of
chalav on table with ben habakar. Answers that since the whole gzeira is shema you’ll
come to make a mistake and eat it, but as long as have a shomer no problem, and
Avraham was standing there, as their shomer, so was no problem of issur haalaa. And
adds that since kodem matan torah, all mitzvos were only bidin eina metzuve v’ose, only
issurei dirabanan, weren’t gozer an issur haalaa in this case.
#10 ‫שיעור‬- Waiting between Basar and Chalav: Part I
Gm Chullin 105A- Don’t have to wait between gvina and basar, but ate basar, assur to
eat gvina.
‫רש"י‬- b/c the taam basar stays in the mouth for a while.
‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:28- reason for the minhag is b/c of meat that gets stuck in the teeth which can’t
get out with a kinuach.
(If allow person to have taste of meat, or actual meat in mouth when eating chalav, might
lead to problems).
Gm continues that basar bein hashinayim is considered basar b/c pasuk by slav says
habasar odenu bein shineihem, see that it’s called basar. Then continues that Mar Ukva
thought he was like vinegar the son of wine b/c my father wouldn’t eat cheese for 24 hrs
after eating basar, and if I eat meat at one meal, I won’t eat milk until the next meal.
1) ‫ נ"מ‬btwn ‫ רש"י‬and ‫?'רמ‬
26
2) What does it mean bein seuda l’seuda?
Issue #1- ‫ רש"י‬vs ‫'רמ‬

89:1 ‫טור‬- If ate basar beheima, chaya, and oaf, wait 6 hours and if still have meat between
teeth, have to take it out, and even without meat btwn teeth assur for 6 hours b/c there is
taam in mouth still. And acc to this reasoning, if just chew for a baby, no need to wait 6
hrs. But acc to ‫'רמ‬, if chew for baby, have to wait, but if after 6 hrs still basar between
teeth, no need to remove it.
2 1 :‫ )נ"מ‬Waiting after chewing for baby. 2) Still have teeth between teeth after 6 hrs.
‫ רש"י‬assumes din of between teeth is separate din, nothing to do with din of 6 hrs, so
since gm says that’s basar, then for sure assur, but acc to ‫'רמ‬, the whole reason waiting is
b/c can’t get all of it out, so once have 6 hrs, don’t have to worry about it anyways.
‫ טור‬concludes that person should be machmir for shnei hatzdadim.
*There are other ‫’נ"מ‬s, (i.e. hard cheese, only a din in taam, nothing between teeth), but
these are the most famous.
Igros Moshe YD 2:26- vitamins that come from liver, don’t have to wait 6 hrs after them
b/c neither of the reasons apply. Only shayla he’s not sure about is that when it comes to
tavshil shel basar, (potato cooked in the chulent), where minhag is to be machmir, even
though both reasons don’t apply there either, maybe should be machmir here as well. So
R’ Moshe says that the vitamin didn’t exist at time this minhag came about, so not nichlal
in the gzeira.
Different shitos of how long you have to wait:

#1- ‫ר"ת‬:
104 '‫תוס‬B- whole din of waiting 6 hours is only without netila and kinuach, but if have
netila and kinuach, no need to wait at all. And Mar Ukva himself was a chumra as well,
or that was only when he didn’t do netila and kinuach. Im kein, even in same meal, seem
to be allowing meat and milk, as long as have netila and kinuach inbetween.
#2- 105 '‫תוס‬A dh Seudasa Achrisa

- This din of seudasa achrisa, is ‫ ל"ד‬from the first meal to the next, ela it means as
long as finished meal, bentched, now can eat milk. Even if not time for next
meal. As long as not in same meal, good to go. Not a din in the zman.
Lichora, ‫ 'תוס‬and ‫ ר"ת‬aren’t saying like ‫רמ‬/‫'רש"י‬, ela some type of heker. See that not
everyone agrees with svaros of ‫ רש"י‬and ‫'רמ‬, maybe.
#3- ‫רא"ש‬
‫ רא"ש‬Chullin siman 5- Seudasa achrisa means the time for the next meal. So have to wait
all the way until the time for the next meal.
#4- ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:28

Kmo 6 hours. Not nec totally exact. (R’ Abadie- when he was in Lakewood, time between
meals didn’t allow full 6hrs between meat and milk, and R’ Aharon said that was the
minhag in Brisk, based on the ‫'רמ‬. It was a little less than 6 hours). Lichora, this is where
the idea of waiting “into the 6th hour” comes from.
27
6 -‫ מאירי‬hours or karov l’ze, b/c at that point considered somewhat digested and no
longer called basar.
‫ רשב"א‬thb”k (bb”ch 86)- also says k’sheish shaos.
Where does 6 hours come from?

Gm Shabbos 10A- different times when ppl ate their morning meal, and says that
Talmidei Chachamim eat at 6th hour. So lichora, would eat meat then and then would eat
milk later at around shkia time, which is around 6 hrs later.
Beiur HaGra 89:2- din of 6 hours comes from this gm, and Mar Ukva was talmid
chacham, and Mar Ukva was saying he does ikar hadin.
‫ שיעור‬of 1 hr
Issur V’heter gvina achar basar 40:3/4 – quotes different shitos (see inside), and then
says that the minhag haolam is to wait one hour after bentching.
Hagahos Shaarei Dura siman 76- quotes this minhag of waiting one hour as well. And
even though really no makor for such a minhag, but since Raavya and ‫ 'תוס‬are meikil
even for less, can’t be moche (Terumas HaDeshen), but the tznuin wait 6 hrs.
Pri Chadash 89:6- this minhag of one hour comes from the Zohar, that says that if eat
milk and meat in same hour or in one seuda, 40 days will see something very bad
(involving a gdi and gehenom). So from here learn two halachos that shouldn’t eat them
in same hour or in same meal even it goes for many hours. But says limaaseh, should
wait 6 hours. But says 6 ‫ ל"ד‬hours, ela it’s the time between meals, but sometimes will be
as little as 4 hours b/c in winter when gets dark very early and would eat dinner very
early. (Theoretically, this could go longer than 6 hours as well).
3 Hours:
Sefer Mizmor L’David- Quotes Pri Chadash, but thinks it should be a set ‫שיעור‬, so take
the earliest time of the year, dhaynu the winter, which was 3 hours, and now have raya
that that’s all you need, so 3 hours stays as the ‫ שיעור‬all year round.
R’ Yerucham (issur v’heter)- also says 3 hours, thinks this is how long Mar Ukva
waitied, and thinks this works with svaras ‫( רש"י‬Some point out that R’ Yerucham in
other sefer writes 6 hours, so this may be a misprint).
Darkei Teshuva 89:5/6- If have safeik if it’s been 6 hours, should be machmir b/c
dsyl”m. And what about the Tzlach who said that something that can be used today and
tomorrow, no din dsyl”m? So says that really not so pashut that have to be machmir (see
inside again and fill in os 6 as well).
Yam Shel Shlomo 105A:9- says should follow the ‫ 'רמ‬and wait 6 hours. What’s pshat in
Mar Ukva’s father? He didn’t have mesora to wait 24 hours, just mi’seuda l’seuda, and
father thought that really means from ikar meal to the ikar meal. And that ikar meal was
only once a day, so waited 24 hours. And Mar Ukva thought that even the small meals
meant a meal.
28
Pleisi 89:3- quotes Pri Chadash from the Zohar, and says doesn’t think that was correct
pshat in Zohar, it means at the same time, not specifically 1 hour. Ela, he thinks the
whole machlokes is question of beginning of digestion which is 72 minutes (reason why
can’t bentch after 72 minutes) or end of digestion, which is 6 hours. And if it’s din in
digestion, lichora need 6 hours. And he thinks there’s even a possibility of being
machmir even to wait 8 hrs b/c they ate earlier, and talmidei chachamim waited less b/c
they ate the first meal later, and strange to say talmidei chachamim would be meikil, so
thinks need 6, and maybe even could say 8 hours.
When count 6 hours is that from time finished eating meat or from when you bentch?
Aruch HaShulchan 89:4- the hakpada was miSeuda l’Seuda. Therefore, should wait 6
hours from the bentching.
Shulchan Aruch 89:1- should be machmir for both opinions, ‫ רש"י‬and ‫'רמ‬, and then
Rama quotes minhag in his medinos to wait one hour as long as bentch inbetween. But at
the end, the Rama says there are those who have minhag to wait 6 hours, and nachon
laasos that way.
Maharshal (quoted some before) - kol sheyesh bo reiach haTorah should wait 6 hours,
and says don’t be moche on those who aren’t bnei torah, but bnei torah should be moche.
Shach quotes this Maharshal.
R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (Shalmas Chaim 416)- says that can be meikil for woman
who is yoledes, for 30 days chola she’ein ba sakana, if she needs meat can be meikil to
allow her to eat as long as not within the same seuda. And says could be the same din for
meinekes and meuberes.
3.12.08 -#11 ‫שיעור‬

Waiting between basar and Chalav Part 2: Tavshil shel basar or chalav
Hosafa to last shiur:

R’ Abadie- If made brocha on milchigs w/in 6 hours, should take bite to avoid brocha
livatala which is more chamur. But if not issue of brocha livatala and already put in
mouth, should spit it out.
Gm Chullin 105A/B- Discussion about hilchos netilas yadayim. Gm says that mayim
rishonim is mitzvah, achronim is chova, and emtzayim is rishus. Shayla is what is the
case of mayim emtzayim?
*Mayim emtzayim is only rishus btwn tavshil and tavshil, but btwn tavshil and gvina is
chova. What does this mean? 2 basic pshatim:
1) Rashbam- Tavshil and Tavshil means two tavshilim that are fleishig, potato and carrot
that were cooked with meat, that’s when it’s a rishus. But if had cheese and now want to
have tavshil of basar, chova to wash. But obviously not talking about tavshil shel basar
and then gvina b/c that’s assur eat, so not even discussing that case.
29
2) Rabbeinu Tam- Tavshil l’tavshil means tavshil shel basar and shel gvina, that’s when
it’s rishus (b/c no halachic reason to wash between meat and meat), and between tavshil
l’gvina means between tavshil shel basar and then gvina mamash, now mayim emtzayim
is chova, but for sure mutar to have gvina after tavshil shel basar, and this is even acc to
those who require waiting until seudasa achrisa (not just RT lishitaso).
Rashba Thb 3:4 86B- holds like Rashbam.
Issur V’Heter 40:2- minhag is to be machmir and wait 6 hours after tavshil shel basar,
and even though basar bein hashinayim doesn’t apply, reason of taam (rashi) would
apply. Holds like Rashbam.
Mordechai chullin 6B- Maharam, his rebbi, machmir not to eat cheese after eggs fried in
goose oil.
Beis Yosef O”CH 173- Quotes Mordechai, and says this is the minhag ha’olam, and ein
lifrtoz geder. However, if just cooked in fleishig pot, even ben yomo, allowed to eat
gvina afterwards, not called tavshil shel basar.
SA 89:3- Mechaber: quotes RT. If eat tavshil shel basar and tavshil shel chalav, rishus
to wash, if have tavshil shel basar and then gvina mamash, chova to wash hands.
Rama: Shuman of basar is like basar mamash. And minhag is to be machmir and not
have gvina after tavshil shel basar and ein lifrotz geder. But if just cooked in fleishig pot,
even ben yomo, can eat gvina afterwards.
Taz 5- meat soup is considered basar mamash (Hagahos Maimoni), when it comes into
water it totally takes over b/c water doesn’t have it’s own taam. R’ Yona thinks that’s
only if it’s thick, but very watery, still just tavshil shel basar.
Shach 19- In siman 95, we’re going to say that can eat something cooked in fleishig pot
with milchigs b/c nat bar nat by heter mutar, so why do you need to tell me that don’t
have to wait 6 hours!? Answers, our case is where the pot isn’t cleaned so well, even so,
don’t have to wait 6 hours, even though can’t eat it with milk.
Yad Yehuda 89:5- Shach is being meikil even if there isn’t 60 kineged the lachluchis left
in the pot, still matir b/c not mechavein to the basar, aderaba, want it cleaned out.
(Lichora, already a minhag to be machmir to wait 6 hours after tavshil shel basar, so
when don’t have kavana to be nehene, less of chashash and ad kan the minhag, bc
obviously when it comes to real issur, kavana not to be nehene is not enough.
Sifsei Daas 19- asks on the Shach, the Rama in 95 is machmir that don’t say nat bar nat
by bishul and therefore wouldn’t allow you to eat it together with milk?! Answers, that
Beis Yosef says you don’t have to be machmir, so kasha is good kasha at least on the beis
yosef.
Pri Chadash 89:18- Minhag to be machmir is based on rishonim who think case in gm
was gvina and then tavshil afterwards, but tavshil shel basar first, nothing to talk about,
30
assur anyways (Rashbam, Rashba). And if just tasting, not a problem, just need kinuach
and hadacha, doesn’t say if can swallow or not.
Yam Shel Shlomo 104B: Siman 5- Thinks even from tavshil shel basar to tavshil shel
gvina have to wait 6 hours.
Badei HaShulchan 89:82- even though not everyone quotes this minhag, nire lihachmir
like the Maharshal.
R’ Akiva Eiger 89:3- Rama only assured gvina mamash after tavshil shel basar, but
tavshil shel gvina would be mutar just with netila. But Toras Chatas and Minchas Yaakov
bring chumra to do kinuach and hadacha, and then quote Maharshal that now noheig issur
of even tavshil shel gvina after tavshil shel basar, have to wait, and kasha lihakeil.
4- davar charif that doesn’t have din of nat bar nat, and cooked in fleishig pot, can’t eat
with kutach, but no need to wait 6 hours, this would be case here as opposed to 95 where
we are meikil to eat together.
3.17.08 -#12 ‫ שיעור‬/

Eating meat after milk
I. Source of requirement for Kinuach and Hadacha, what it is, when you need it:
A. Gm Chullin 104B- Igra: chicken and cheese can be eaten “b’apikoren”, meaning
w/out netilas yadayim or kinuach. Mashma, basar beheima requires both of those.
Discussion also about kinuach and hadacha, machlokes Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai,
which comes out that both require both.
B. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:26- Need to wash your hands and do kinuach hape, hadacha = netilas
yadayim, not as washing out mouth. If have basar oaf, no need for kinuach or hadacha.
C. Rashash Chullin beg of kol habasar- only need kinuach and hadacha if eat cheese
b/c then things are stuck between teeth, etc. but if only drink milk, only require hadacha,
no kinuach.
D. Livush 89:2 – No need to bentch between chalav and basar. Look at hands during
day, wash them if can’t see. Some put bread and water and eat together to be yotzei both
kinuach and hadacha at same time, but better to do them separately. Should do kinuach
first, gets rid of ikar hataam, and then do hadacha. There are those who are meikil to
allow you to switch the order. And this is all by basar, but by oaf don’t need any of this.
But acc to the Zohar, shouldn’t even have oaf after milk in same seuda, and raui
lihachmir.
E. SA 89:2-
1. Mechaber: Eat cheese, mutar to eat basar right away, as long as look at hands,
and at night, where can’t see, should wash your hands, and have to do kinuach and
31
hadacha. But this is only if want to eat basar beheima, but if want to eat basar oaf, no
need for any of this.
(a) Shach 11- Hagahos maimoni: no need to be specific about the order of
kinuach and hadacha.
(b) 14- We are machmir for basar chaya as well, even though maybe only
midirabanan like oaf, b/c looks like basar beheima.
2. Badei HaShulchan 89:49- Can be meikil in terms of order of hadacha and

kinuach.
3. 50- quotes Rashash, only need hadacha after milk, but then quotes Issur
V’heter- that should do kinuach even by milk (Livush said that kinuach is to remove
taam, so maybe should apply to milk too). [104 ‫מאירי‬B- kinuach is only to get rid of the
perurin and there are no perurin by milk, but acc to Livush, din of taam and there is taam
even by milk] so machmir.
II. Chumra by Hard Cheese:

A. Mordechai beg. kol habasar- Maharam meRutenberg was machmir to wait
meseuda l’seuda for basar beheima and chaya after cheese. Used to make fun of ppl who
used to do this, apikorsus. But one time found cheese in teeth between seudos, so he was
gozer on himself. And have such an idea that ppl were extra machmir on themselves, like
Mar Ukva’s father, so just making extra syag.
B. Toras Chatas 2- quotes Maharam, if it’s not cheese that was aged 6 months, no
reason to be machmir. But if the cheese was aged for 6 months, midas chassidus to be
machmir. Quotes Beis Yosef (?) that if Maharam had the Zohar he wouldn’t have been
meikil by oaf.
C. Issur V’heter 40:10- midas chassidus, and nachon l’chol baal nefesh to machmir if
the cheese has been aged for 6 months b/c that cheese has as much taam as beitzim fried
in goose fat, which e/one is nizhar to wait after.
D. From when does one count the 6 months?

*R’ Belsky- “Aged cheese” means that it’s been aged in aging rooms during production,
doesn’t mean that it’s been sitting on your shelf for 6 months.
- Parmesean Cheese and Romano Cheese can be considered hard cheese if aged for
6 months (Star-K).
E. Rama 89:2- there are machmirim to wait after hard cheese like after meat, and yesh
meikilim, and ein limchos b’yadam, but “tov l’hachmir”.
1. Taz 4- this chumra only makes sense acc to ‫ רש"י‬who was worried about taam
basar in mouth, ‫ הה"נ‬taam cheese. But acc to ‫ 'רמ‬that din in basar between teeth, that’s
only chashash by basar davka where there is pasuk that it’s called basar, but cheese
between teeth isn’t called cheese.
III. Minhag on Shvuos to have chalav and then basar:
32
A. Zohar (Mishpatim)- milk and basar shouldn’t be in same meal, no matter how long
inbetween (B’shata chada or b’seudasa chada).
B. Shela 2:16- Eat milchigs, bentch, change tablecloth, wait one hour, then can have
fleishigs, even when do kinuach, hadacha, etc. Was choshesh for zohar.
C. Magen Avraham O”ch 494- Quotes that the 7 weeks of sefira are like 7 nekiyim, and
milk of woman comes from dam. Eating milchigs is a zecher to the dam going away and
producing milk, symbolizing tahara of klal yisrael. But should be careful to separate the
milchigs and fleishigs, but don’t have to bentch inbetween. Not concerned with the
Zohar.
D. Sefer Beer Mayim Chaim- Avraham Avinu had to give the malachim food right
away, but didn’t serve bread, just gave them butter and milk b/c knew that when it came
time for the basar, they would have to bentch first (and says there could be a taus sofer in
Magen Avraham), so didn’t bring the bread until the meat. So now milk and meat weren’t
in same seuda, and was nizhar for the Zohar.
IV. Status of the Bread on table when eating milchigs or fleishigs:

A. Yerushalmi Pesachim 43A- after eat milchigs, if want to eat fleishigs, have to take
something off the table as well, not clear what.
1. Korban ha’Eida- have to take off even the bread you were eating with the
milchigs and have to bring out new bread when want to eat meat.
B. Ohr Zarua- when gm Chullin says you don’t have to wait between milk and meat,
that’s only l’inyan waiting, but for sure have to clean the bread off the table.
C. Shut 1:76 ‫רשב"א‬- If eat meat on tablecloth, assur to eat milk on that tablecloth b/c
will be leftover meat and will get into the cheese. Could be that he’s only talking about
where they ate the meat on the placemat itself.
D. SA 89:4-
1. Mechaber: If ate milchigs and want to eat meat on same table, have to remove
the leftover bread from the table that you ate with the cheese. Also, assur to eat cheese
on same tablecloth on which one ate basar, and kol shekein assur to to cut basar with
knife used for cheese and vice versa, and even to cut the bread that ate with cheese with
meat knife is assur. (Rama- discusses neitza, see next ‫שיעור‬.)
E. Igros Moshe YD 1:38- this din is only going on the slices that you cut off from the big
challah, if had it with fleishigs, shouldn’t use for milchigs, but that which wasn’t cut off,
can be used with milchigs. And this is all from din in Yerushalmi. But if want to be
machmir not to eat the whole loaf with milchigs, would be mikayeim chumra of Hagahos
Ashri, but not ikar hadin from Yerushalmi.
F. Darkei Teshuva 89:47- Vikuach Mayim Chaim: In Poland, poor ppl who couldn’t
throw out an entire loaf of bread would use a pareve knife to cut off a finger’s width from
the loaf and eat the rest with the other min (basar or chalav), but says didn’t see ppl in his
33
area do this, and raui lihachmir b/c have to be worried there is something from cheese or
meat on all sides of the loaf (lichora, against R’ Moshe).
12 /3.19.08 -#13 ‫ שיעור‬Adar II 5768

Using same knife for basar and chalav and Ramifications
I. Sources related to kashering a knife (not talking about getting rid of blios)
A. Mishna AZ 75B- the way to kasher a knife is “shafa”.
1. ‫רש"י‬- rub it against stone.
B. Gm AZ 76B- Also have to stick knife in hard ground 10 times. Has to be hard ground
and knife shouldn’t have gumos where shamnunis will still stay. *Gm says this only
works for tzonein b/c neitza doesn’t get rid of blios.
- Gm then has story where non-Jewish king stuck the knife in the ground 10x before
cutting a piece of esrog for Mar Yehuda.
1. ‫ 'תוס‬Amar- ground should be not too hard, not too soft.
C. Gm Chullin 8B- 2 cases:

1. Shecht w/ knife that belongs to non-Jew, what’s the status of the beis hablia?
Rav- koleif, Raba bar Chana- just rinse off the point of contact. Either ku’a agree beis
hashechita is roseiach, Rb”ch thought that when dam is being niflat, can’t be boleia. Or
ku’a beis haShechita is tzonein, and Rav thinks duchka d’sakina causes blia.
2. Knife used to shecht treifa, want to use for kosher food (even chamin) pasken
that don’t need hagala, can rinse it off.
(a) ‫רש"י‬- By goyishe knife, blia is in the knife and meat is soft, blia can
get in more easily, so machmir. By treifa, nervous about animal giving taam to the knife,
which is much harder to do, so meikil. Can even just wipe it off with cloth.
(b) ‫'תוס‬- Why don’t we need neitza here? B/c AZ knife was used all the
time for issur, etc. then need neitza, a lot of shamnunis, but if it happens b’akrai, then not
worried that so much shamnunis on the kli, no need.
D. SA YD 10- Mechaber: If shechted treifa w/ a knife, have to wipe it off before use it
again, and if did shecht w/out wiping off, do hadacha on point of contact. However, if
always used for treifa, then need neitza 10x b’karka before use it again (‫’'תוס‬s chiluk).
II. Using Fleishig knife for milchigs and vice versa

A. Teshuvas 1:76 ‫רשב"א‬- Can’t cut cheese with knife that use for meat b/c maybe
there’s some shamnunis on there. And ‫ הה"נ‬to cut bread you want to eat with meat with
milchig knife (and v’v).
B. Yam Shel Shlomo 104B Siman 8- Quotes Orchos Chaim that can cut bread for
fleishigs with dairy knife if wipe it off, and can even cut cheese with fleishig knife if do
neitza. Disagrees with this, thinks neitza is only done when already made mistake and
used meat knife for dairy, now do neitza to let it return to its original status (only
bidieved, never lichatchila).
34
C. SA 89:4-
1. Mechaber: case of bread on table with milchigs or fleishigs, (see last ‫)שיעור‬,
and then says that shouldn’t cut cold cheese with fleishig knife (and vice versa), and even
cutting bread for milchig meal with fleishig knife (and vice versa) is assur.
2. Rama: But if do neitza, then it’s mutar. And even so, kvar nahagu yisrael to
have separate knives, and ein lishanos minhag yisrael.
Machlokes ‫ ש"ך‬and ‫ ט"ז‬about pshat in Rama:

(a) Taz 6- Rama is referring to din of cutting cheese, then need neitza, but
to cut bread just wipe it off. 7- And even the minhag Yisrael is not to cut cheese with
meat knife, but no such minhag when it comes to bread, can just wipe it off.
(b) Shach 22/Pri Chadash 23 – The Rama was speaking about bread,
need neitza, and mashma that would be ok even lichatchila. However, would be assur to
use meat knife even al yidei neitza to cut cheese. And minhag Yisrael is even not to use
meat knife for bread.
D. Badei HaShulchan- thinks should be machmir like Shach, but bidieved, if did neitza
and cut the cheese, mutar to eat it l’ku”a. And minhag yisrael to have separate keilim is
even by bread, and by all keilim, not just knives, and even by glasses. However, b’shaas
hadchak, follow ikar hadin (can do neitza for bread, lichora, but still not for cheese).
*R’ Simon- Minhag Yisrael is not to have separate sets of glasses. R’ Abadie- b/c no
chashash shamnunis.
III. Using milchig utensils for fleishigs (and v”v) b’tzonein

A. Gm Chullin 8b (bottom) - Butcher should have 3 knives. One he uses to shecht, one
to cut meat with, and one to cut out chelev b/c nervous that will come to use the knife to
cut the chelev and then meat (and will forget to wash it off inbetween).
B. Gm Chullin 107B- can place meat and cheese in same bag, as long as don’t touch
eachother. And what’s wrong if they touch? Abaye: You’ll still need to do hadacha on
them if they touch (and we’re nervous you will forget).
1. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb 4:1, 21B- Any issur and heter that touch, have to do hadacha.
Therefore, shouldn’t allow them to touch, shema you’ll forget to do hadacha after they
touch. Quotes Baal Ha’itur- if the item is something that will be washed before
consumption, like raw meat, then built in that won’t forget to wash it, no reason not to
allow it to touch issur. And quotes gm Chullin 8b about the butcher, have to be worried
that won’t rinse it off.
*Baskin Robbins shayla: even if wipe of scooper from non-kosher ice cream, does this
violate the issur?
C. SA 91:1 –
1. Mechaber: If basar and gvina touch, mutar to eat if do hadacha at point of
contact. And can place them in one bag and don’t have to worry they will touch. 2-
Anything that qould require hadacha afterwards, like putting cold basar in milchig dish,
assur to do, shema will forget to wash it off. However, if it’s something that you will
definitely wash off, like raw meat, mutar to put in lichatchila (‫’רשב"א‬s din from baal
haitur).
35
2. Rama: but if the item is totally dry or the kli was only nivla b’tzonein, mutar
ligamrei (this is pshat acc to Taz, who thinks there is taus sofer in Rama).
D. SA 121:7- Bought knife from non-Jew, if want to use for tzonein, knife has no gumos,
do neitza b’karka kasha 10x, each neitza in a different spot, and good even to cut davar
charif. Rama- but this is only to use b’derech akrai, to use derech keva, need hagala.
IV. Od b’inyan ze
A. Gm Chullin 111B- plate that did melicha on, and wasn’t menukav, plate has blios of
blood. Can’t use it for kosher roseiach. B/c meliach k’roseiach. And prove that even R’
Yochanan holds meliach k’roseiach b/c his talmid R’ Ami broke this type of kli,
presumably b/c can’t kasher this kli from the blood.
1. 40 ‫ר"ן‬B- Why not just use the kli cheres for tzonein? Answers, that since kli
cheres has no way to be misakein it to be able to use chamin, can’t use it b’tzonein,
shema you’ll come to use it for chamin.
2. Mordechai Pesachim 565- Any kli that has blias issur, can’t use for tzonein,
shema will come to use it b’chamin.
B. Darkei Moshe 121:4- ‫ר"ן‬- davka kli cheres can’t use b’tzonein b/c no way to be
misakein it, ‫ משא"כ‬other keilim can use b’tzonein even if have blias issur. Mordechai- all
keilim that need hechsher assur to use with tzonein, gzeira shema will come to use them
with chamin.
C. SA 121:5-
1. Mechaber: Did Hagala on kli that requires libun, assur to use hot, even shelo al
gabei ha’eish.
2. Rama: If do hadacha and shifshuf can use these keilim for tzonein, lichatchila,
and kol shekein for kli that needs hagala, but this is all davka b’akrai, i.e. in non-Jew’s
house or bidieved. But if want to use it b’derech keva, there are those who are machmir
to require hagala or libun, gzeira shema will come to use it for chamin, v’hachi nohagin,
(there is more here, but not shayach to our inyan).
D. SA O”ch Hilchos YT 509- Milchig dish, cooked milchigs and now want to use it for
fleishig dish, after doing libun. If using it for fleishigs and want to do libun to use it for
milchigs on yt, mutar. But if was used for neveila and now want to do libun to use for
kosher, assur.
- What’s the chiluk? When was neveila, this is libun gamur, looks like real tikun kli,
assur on yomtov. But from fleishigs to milchigs, heteira bala, not real libun (doesn’t have
to be quite as hot), so not tikun kli, mutar on yomtov.
1. Magen Avraham- lichora, see from here that can kasher something to use for
milchigs and then for fleishigs, but the minhag is not to do so. Why not? B/c if
everything is switching back and forth, e/one will just have one set of dishes and might
forget to kasher and will come to make a mistake.
**So why is it mutar here? B/c since these tins are used through libun itself, built-in
libun every time use the tin, then no chashash you’re going to forget (lichora, they first
put the tin on the fire, it got hot, and then put the food in).
36
(a) Eishel Avraham 30- this minhag not to kasher from milchigs to
fleishigs during the year, but when its for Pesach, which is mutar to do, then can switch it
from milchigs to fleishigs and vice versa. Also in 509, quotes another minhag that if
switching from milchigs to fleishigs, noheig to make the kli treif first.
2. Teshuvas Maharsham 241- Can transfer from fleishigs to pareve, and then
later from pareve to milchigs, but not straight from milchigs to fleishigs or vice versa.
3. Badei Hashulchan 89:4 Biurim- Speaks about the pri megadim’s din of
making them treif, etc.
#14 ‫שיעור‬-B’inyan Kchal
I. Explanation of the Sugya of Kchal

A. Mishna Chullin 109A- Should rip open the utter and remove the milk, if didn’t do it,
not over an issur (‫רש"י‬- chalav shechuta dirabanan).
B. Gm 109B- Two man d’amrim in gm about what Rav held, is there still an issur
dirabanan or not. And R’ Nachman says zviku li kachlei, roast some kchal and only need
kria for kdeira.
1. ‫רש"י‬- Issur dirabanan of chalav shechuta only sets in when the milk comes out
of the kchal, but if milk is still in there while you’re eating it, not even chalav
midirabanan.
(a) L”k: Mishna is talking about tzli, and saying only lichatchila need kria.
(b) L”b: Mishna is talking about kdeira, even bidieved, if no kria, assur.
(c) R’ Nachman: Even by tzli don’t need kria at all, only by bishul.
**Limaaseh, chiluk btwn kdeira and tzli, kdeira need kria shesi v’erev v’tacho bakosel,
even bidieved, but if want to do tzli, have to do kria shesi v’erev lichatchila, paskens like
l’k).
2. ‫ ר"ת‬-'‫תוס‬: Issur dirabanan sets in when kchal is cooked in pot with other meat
(this meat will get new taam chalav). Makes chiluk btwn 1) kdeira with basar vs 2) kdeira
w/out basar/tzli. R’ Nachman: Kdeira w/ basar needs kria shesi v’erev.
**Limaaseh: Cooking kchal w/ other meat, need full kria even bidieved. No other meat
in the pot or tzli, kria ktzas lichatchila, but bidieved, even if did nothing, mutar.
2a. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:12-14: Kchal assur midivrei sofrim. Always need kria shesi v’erev
for kdeira, and if didn’t do kria, by itself mutar, w/ other basar, mishaeir 60. Basically
the same as ‫ר"ת‬, but may always require shesi v’erev lichatchila in all situations (not just
kria k’tzas).
II. Halacha Limaaseh:

A. 90:2 ‫טור‬- Minhag not to be mivashel kchal with other basar, even if did good kria.
And even to cook it alone need full kria and its own special pot.
37
B. Smak (hagahos R’ Peretz on bottom) - ‫ צ"ע‬on the minhag b/c acc to everyone, if do
kria, it should be good to cook with other meat?!
**Answers that being choshesh for shitas ‫רש"י‬. Only said kchal alone is mutar with kria,
but never was matir w/ other meat in the pot (pashtus in ‫ רש"י‬is that no difference btwn
with other meat or not).
C. 90:1/2 ‫שו"ע‬
1. 1 ‫מחבר‬: Kchal is assur midivrei sofrim b/c chalav shechuta only assur
midirabanan. Therefore, if remove the milk, can roast and eat it. If koreia shesi v’erev
v’tocho b’kosel, so there’s no chalav at all, can be mivashel it with basar. And if weren’t
koreia and were mivashel anyway, if cooked by itself, mutar bidieved, but with other
meat, mishaeir b’60 and kchal min haminyan. And continues about being mishaeir.
2. 2 ‫מחבר‬: Minhag not to be mivashel kchal with other basar at all, and without
basar, only with kria shesi v’erev.
3. 2 ‫רמ"א‬- If were mivashel with basar, mutar bidieved as long as were koreia
shesi v’erev and tocho b’kosel.
III. How are we mishaeir 60 by kchal?

A. Gm Chullin 97B- Kchal b’60 and kchal is min haminyan, d’haynu, you can count the
meat of the kchal with the other meat against the milk.
1. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 15:18- Since kchal is only issur dirabanan, chazal were meikil by the
‫ שיעור‬and allow its own basar to count against the milk and only require 59 against the
kchal.
(*Some want to learn from this ‫ 'רמ‬that he thinks all issurei dirabanan only need 59)
2. ‫ רשב"א‬thb 4:1, 16B- Kchal is min haminyan b/c it is basar and can combine
with the other basar. But has nothing to do with it being din dirabanan b/c regular
dirabanans also need 60. If would cook kchal in pot of milk, for sure need 60 against the
kchal not including the kchal itself.
3. ‫ ר"ן‬Chullin 35A- reason kchal is assur even after being used to be mivatel the
chalav is altz maris ayin.
IV. What about the next pot?

A. Gm Chullin 97B- R’ Yitzchak brei d’R’ Misharshia –kchal atzmo is assur, even after
used the kchal to be mivatel the milk. Even though kchal can be used to do a bitul,
afterwards, the kchal is assur to eat.
B. 90:2 ‫שו"ע‬-
1. ‫מחבר‬: If have 60 along with the kchal, kchal is assur and everything else is
mutar, if not 60, everything is assur. But in either case, when kchal would now fall into
another pot, now treated as issur and need 60 together with it as well. Mishaeir with it
k’bitchila (‫)'רמ‬.
2. ‫ רמ"א‬: Yesh Omrim, that if kchal helped to be mivatel the milk, will retain
regular status in next pot, can be included to be mitztareif to 60, but if there wasn’t 60,
then it becomes assur, and cannot be mitztareif to heter meat in the next pot (‫)רשב"א‬.
38
(a) 4 ‫ ט"ז‬on ‫מחבר‬- Kchal retains status even after being in pot that didn’t
have 60, don’t say ‫חנ"ן‬. Ends up as machlokes ‫ 'רמ‬and ‫רשב"א‬, how we view the kchal in
the next pot:
(i) ‫'רמ‬- no ‫ חנ"ן‬by issurei dirabanan, retains status.
(ii) ‫ חנ"ן‬-‫ רשב"א‬even by issurei dirabanan, kchal can become
cheftza shel issur. **Since we pasken like Rama, who
holds like the ‫רשב"א‬, see that we don’t hold like R’ Ephraim, ela we have ‫ חנ"ן‬even by
issurei dirabanan. ‫ 'רמ‬doesn’t hold from ‫ חנ"ן‬in issurei dirabanan, thinks could even be
marbe on the kchal livatlo.
(b) 5 ‫ש"ך‬- (R’ Simon didn’t mention it).
3.26.08 -#15 ‫שיעור‬/

Tipas Chalav shenafla al chaticha and its ramifications
I. The case, and machlokes rishonim how to understand it

A. Mishna Chullin 108A- drop of chalav falls onto piece of meat sticking out of the pot,
if have nosein taam in that chaticha, then the chaticha is assur. If mix the kdeira up
(immediately as it falls in [‫)]רש"י‬, then needs to be able to give taam to the whole pot in
order to assur the whole pot, otherwise batel.
1. ‫ ר"י‬-'‫תוס‬: as long as touching rotev, considered mixed in, not separate unit. Our
mishna is talking about case where it is totally out of the rotev.
2. ‫רש"י‬- even if sitting in the rotev, but some is sticking out, still considered
separate unit. (Both shitos are quoted in 96 '‫תוס‬b Im)
(a) Beis Yosef 92- Source for shitas ‫ רש"י‬may be 108A who says that tipa
falls on one chaticha on side of other chatichos, so mistama it’s inside the rotev. Still not
100% clear.
(b) Maharam Shif- ‫ רש"י‬says the milk is b’gaga shel chaticha. If it was
totally out of the rotev, who cares where in the chaticha it falls. Ela ‫ רש"י‬tells us that it’s
on top to say in the part that is not currently in the rotev, but some of the chaticha is in the
rotev.
92:2 ‫שו"ע‬- Fill in

4 ‫ש"ך‬- brings machlokes ‫ רש"י‬and ‫ר"י‬.
II. ‫ חנ"ן‬b’shaar issurim (Trei mashehu lo amrinan)

A. Gm Chullin 100A- Rav: Keivan shenasan taam b’chaticha ‫ חנ"ן‬and assurs everything
else mipnei shehein mino. Gm wants to know, if already mb”m, and eino batel anyways,
what’s the need for nesinas taam to another chaticha? All working within R’ Yehuda.
1. ‫'תוס‬- If working w/in R’ Yehuda (mb”m lo batel), why does there even have to
be nesinas taam in the first chaticha at all? Neveila falls on kosher meat, assurs
b’mashehu and should assur everything else b’mashehu!?
(a) ‫ר"ת‬: Even though piece of kosher meat becomes assur b’kol shehu, that
wouldn’t give it the power to assur other pieces b/c was never naases neveila, just assur
b’mashehu. ‫ ט"ז‬calls this: Trei mashehu lo amrinan.
39
- ‫ ר"ת‬assumes that only reason why can’t say ‫ חנ"ן‬is b/c there is no nesinas taam, but if
there would be a nesinas taam of neveila into kosher meat, would say ‫חנ"ן‬. Famous shita
that we say ‫ חנ"ן‬by shaar issurim.
(b) R’ Ephraim- Agrees that trei mashehu lo amrinan, ela need a b’ein to
be able to assur, and a mashehu doesn’t create a b’ein of issur. However, he holds that
even if there was nesinas taam, still wouldn’t say ‫ חנ"ן‬b/c only says ‫ חנ"ן‬by bb’ch b/c def
of bb”ch is two heter which transform to become issur b’etzem, ‫ משא"כ‬by shaar issurim,
just issur stuck inside heter.
(c) ‫נ"מ‬: If neveila falls into kosher meat, and that piece into other pieces
of kosher meat, do you have to be mishaeir kineged this whole piece, or just the blias
issur?
2. 92:16 ‫ט"ז‬- says yesod of trei mashehu lo amrinan, and says will apply to
Pesach as well, won’t say trei mashehu.
3. Nekudas HaKesef 4- Explains ‫ 'תוס‬differently: Din of mashehu is only if the
mashehu is davar issur and assurs this next item, but if koach acher meurav bo, d’haynu
blia of neveila in heter, and now put this in another pot, now heter and issur are coming
out together into heter, viewed as mbse”m. So now don’t say mb”m assur b’mashehu b/c
this is mbse”m. However, by chametz, if blia of chametz in tavshil, considerd mbse”m in
non-chametz dish, but not mechaleik btwn mb”m and eino mino, so can still assur.
Therefore, will still say trei mashehu on Pesach.
III. Another machlokes by ‫חנ"ן‬: Only by yavesh, or even by lach b’lach?

A. ‫ רשב"א‬thb 4:1, 7b- quotes ‫ ראב"ד‬that don’t say ‫ חנ"ן‬by yayin b’yayin, etc. Ela, just
considered mixture of issur and heter, and if would fall into more heter, would only have
to be mivatel the issur shebo.
B. 92:3 ‫שו"ע‬-
1. ‫מחבר‬- when meat becomes assur from milk, the entire chaticha becomes davar
issur, and if mivashel with other pieces need 60 to be mivatel the whole thing, and if
know which piece it is, have to remove it, and if don’t know which one it is, and it’s
chh”l, all chatichos are assur, and rotev is mutar.
C. 92:4 ‫שו"ע‬-
1. ‫מחבר‬- only say ‫ חנ"ן‬by bb”ch, but not by shaar issurim, so by chelev that is
nivla in kosher meat, only mishaeir kineged the chelev. And then even the first chaticha
becomes mutar again.
2. ‫רמ"א‬- there are those who hold that say ‫ חנ"ן‬even by shaar issurim and that’s
the minhag. Continues about requirements to say ‫ חנ"ן‬in shaar issurim, but save that for
later.
IV. Is ‫’ר"ת‬s din doraysa or midirabanan?

A. 12 ‫ש"ך‬- quotes Agur b’shem Trumas haDeshen: din dirabanan.
B. Chidushei ‫ ר"ת‬-‫ רע"א‬is talking on doraysa level: ‫ 'תוס‬Chullin 100B ask on ‫ ר"ת‬from
case of klei midyan, how could they be magil big pots, which is only a shayla on doraysa
level.
40
C. Mate Yonasan (Eibshitz) tries to defend dirabanan side: ‫)?( ט"ז‬: If Torah is matir
something b’feirush, chazal can’t assur it. I.e. even though chazal assur using
instruments on shabbos and yt, can’t assur shofar on yt, b/c torah says b’feirush blow
shofar on yt. Maybe ‫ ר"ת‬is saying ‫ חנ"ן‬b’shaar issurim is only midirabanan. However,
can’t say there is an issur dirabanan on something the Torah matired b’feirush, d’haynu
hechsher keilim of even large pots that are bnei yoman.
V. The connection btwn the two ‫”ר"ת‬s (taam k’ikar doraysa and ‫ חנ"ן‬by shaar issurim):
A. Pri Megadim SD 92:12- He thinks they are connected, and Pleisi was margish this as
well. Meaning, that ‫ ר"ת‬who holds taam k’ikar is doraysa, and get malkus for every
kzayis of mixture including this issur, so as long as any taam in this piece of meat, gives
it din of cheftza shel issur doraysa. But if hold like ‫ ר' חיים‬Cohen, that no malkus unless
have kzayis b’chdei achilas pras in the mixture, assumes that the mixture doesn’t become
cheftza shel issur, and ‫ חנ"ן‬by shaar issurim would only be midirabanan.
B. The two shitos are not connected:

1. Binyan Yaakov argues they are not related: By taam k’ikar, ‫ ר"ת‬says that
since margish the taam when you eat this, even though every molecule isn’t the issur, but
consider it as if it is and get malkus. But when it comes to the 2nd chaticha, ‫ אה"נ‬it’s assur
and is assured by the first chaticha that had blias issur, but for sure you have 60 kineged
the blia, just not kineged the whole piece, mimeila that’s only midirabanan b/c won’t be
margish the taam issur in the 2nd chaticha.
2. Rav Soloveitchik (R’ Koenigsburg’s sefer) : Problem with saying like Pri
Megadim is shitas 96 ‫ר"י‬B that when it comes to ‫חנ"ן‬, the neesar can only assur as far as
the issur itself can go. If this is true, it must be that ‫ חנ"ן‬doesn’t work b/c heter nehafach
lihiyos issur, like ‫ ר"ת‬holds by taam k’ikar b/c otherwise, the neesar could go even farther
than the issur can go b/c it becomes the issur itself. Ela mai, ‫ חנ"ן‬means that ‫ אה"נ‬this
piece is assur b/c there is an issur balua inside, but nevertheless, we have to be mishaeir
kineged the entire piece. (sounds less exciting, but no less true).
3.31.08 -#16 ‫שיעור‬

Efshar L’sochto (‫)אפל"ס‬
I. Basics of ‫אפל"ס‬
A. Gm Chullin 108A- mach whether ‫ אפל"ס‬is mutar or assur. And seems to be
interconnected with din of ‫חנ"ן‬. If ‫ אפל"ס‬mutar, then no ‫חנ"ן‬, if assur then say ‫חנ"ן‬.
1a. ‫ רש"י‬and ‫'תוס‬- idea of ‫ אפל"ס‬is that if would say it’s mutar, then even the
original piece would be mutar.
1b. ‫ר"ן‬- discusses ‫ חנ"ן‬in shaar issurim as gzeira altz bb”ch and says as well that
the diyun is whether the original piece that is affected can be chozer liheteiro.
2a. ‫ריטב"א‬- Quotes from ‫רמב"ן‬: Impossible to say that something that was assured
will be chozer liheteiro just by removing that which assured it. ‫ אפל"ס‬determines whether
we are mishaeir kineged the issur or the entire chaticha.
41
(The ‫’רשב"א‬s chidush is that even if you don’t hold ‫חנ"ן‬, still the piece won’t become
mutar).
2b. 495 ‫רשב"א שו"ת‬- can never be matir the original piece of meat that became
assur b/c simply cannot know if all of the issur came out. And quotes those who want to
say really it would work, it’s just that can’t do it b/c emi”l, and says not true, b/c if could
be matir piece of meat that has blias issur through this process, im kein we have hagala
by ochlin and we know that we don’t have such a concept. Ela, once meat becomes assur,
assur forever. Makes a chiluk btwn issur that falls into a mixture and just is mixed in, if
more heter would fall in to be mivatel the issur, that would work, as opposed to when it’s
nivla in a chaticha, and being marbe won’t help b/c issur will never come all the way out
of the heter to allow it to become mutar again b/c I can never know if the chalav came all
out of the basar.
Bayis hakatzar (4:1) 6b- says similar idea.
Bayis ha”aruch
(a)Beis Yosef 106:2- If the whole reason why I can’t assume that the issur
came out of the original heter piece that became assur is b/c I can’t know if it came out,
why don’t we just say ask a goy to taste it and let us know? Gives possible teretz, that
once it becomes assur, cannot become mutar even if the taam issur won’t be there
anymore (sounds like the Rav’s yesod of ein bitul ela metechilas taaroves), unless all of
the issur came out, which you can never know for sure.
II. Blatant stira in ‫שו"ע‬:

A. 92:4- ‫מחבר‬: Only say ‫ חנ"ן‬in bb”ch, not shaar issurim. If chelev falls onto piece of
meat, no 60 in that piece, but then falls into pot, if have 60 kineged the chelev, even first
piece of heter is mutar.
B. 106:1- ‫מחבר‬: Chaticha is boleia issur and no 60, if falls into another pot, only will
assur if don’t have 60 kineged the original issur (‫ מחבר‬-1 ‫ ש"ך‬lishitaso- no ‫ חנ"ן‬b’shaar
issurim). However, even if there is 60 kineged the original issur, the 1st piece will never
be mutar b/c once assur, never chozeres lihiyos muteres.
**Real deal stira. Even the ‫ רמ"א‬in 106, points out the stira, and says we hold like ‫מחבר‬
writes in 106. (Stira is not his shita by ‫חנ"ן‬, it’s just about status of first chaticha).
III. Different approaches to answer this stira:

A. 92:11 ‫ש"ך‬- Chiluk btwn two cases is in terms of chh”l, not ‫ מחבר‬.‫ חנ"ן‬holds ‫ חנ"ן‬in
both cases. First chaticha should always remain assur. However, if can’t find it, din will
depend on whether we’re talking about bb”ch or shaar issurim b/c by bb”ch, everything is
assur b/c original piece is only chh”l if it’s assur machmas atzmo. So in shaar issurim,
b/c can’t find the piece, will be batel (“chozer l’heteiro” in a certain sense), ‫ משא"כ‬by
bb”ch.
B. Beer HaGola 106:3-

1. ‫ מחבר‬changed his mind from what he wrote in 92. No fancy teretz, he simply
changed his mind.
2. In 92, talking about midoraysa, assume it came out, and here in 106 talking
midirabanan, don’t rely on this, and we assur (see inside).
42
(Beiur haGra in hilchos ‫יו"ט‬: many times the ‫ מחבר‬is soser himself and doesn’t feel
necessity to have unified opinion all the time).
C. Pleisi 92:4- in 106, dealing with mbse”m, din of 60 is doraysa, so have to be machmir.
92 is mb”m (assuming chelev and basar is called mb”m), so din of 60 is only
midirabanan, so misafeik can be meikil (what’s the safeik?).
D. Sifsei Daas- quotes from Beis Yisrael that chelev and basar is mbse”m, and in 106,
talking about mb”m (see inside). Then adds that this whole discussion, though is only if
hold like R’ Ephraim, but acc to us Ashkenazim that we hold like ‫ רמ"א‬that worried about
‫ חנ"ן‬in even in shaar issurim, for sure that chaticha is assura anyways.
‫ שו"ת‬Maharam Lublin 28: Onion cut with fleishig knife, and then put it in cheese
blintzes or a cheese omelete. And there is 60 kineged the whole onion, but the onion is
still intact, so it is now balua with basar and chalav b/c the onion doesn’t have 60 kineged
the omelete. And was very difficult to take out the whole onion b/c all broken up. Would
require a great deal of tircha to take it out.
Answers: The concept of ‫ חנ"ן‬is only by issur, but onion doesn’t become ‫ חנ"ן‬of fleishigs.
Only need 60 kineged the balua of fleishig in the onion, dhaynu the area where knife
touched the onion. Im kein, all the taam of basar in onion will go out into the omelete
and be batel, so the onion is not bb”ch, and your omelete is mutar ligamrei. However, if
would have used treif knife, say ‫ חנ"ן‬in the onion, and that omelete is taka assur until you
take out the whole onion.
This ‫ שו"ת‬is quoted in 94:6 ‫שו"ע‬- onions and veggies that are nivla with basar, if cooked
with milk, only need 60 kineged the basar. ‫רמ"א‬: b/c don’t say ‫ חנ"ן‬in heter.
23 ‫ש"ך‬- quotes the ‫ שו"ת‬Maharam.
‫ רע"א שו"ת‬YD- If hold like the ‫ רשב"א‬that have to assume that there is chalav still in the
basar when it gets mixed in (even in case when don’t say ‫)חנ"ן‬, even if are marbe and
have 60 kineged the chalav, then how can you be so sure that the basar taam in the onion
comes out, even though we don’t say ‫חנ"ן‬, and leaves it as ‫צ"ע‬.
Aruch HaShulchan also deals with stira in ‫מחבר‬: Discusses machlokes ‫ רש"י‬and ‫רשב"א‬
what ‫ אפל"ס‬means. ‫ אפל"ס‬-‫ רש"י‬means that since it never became ‫חנ"ן‬, then when the tipa
is removed, now the original chaticha becomes mutar again. ‫רשב"א‬- If hold from ‫חנ"ן‬,
obviously piece stays assur forever. However, if don’t say ‫ אפל"ס‬,‫ חנ"ן‬mutar means there
is possibility that the blia went out, but only efshar, and since we can never know, should
be machmir to assume that the piece is still assur.
So in 92, when says no ‫ חנ"ן‬in shaar issurim, in priniciple the chaticha can be mutar, b/c
talking from perspective of ‫חנ"ן‬, if no ‫חנ"ן‬, chaticha could be mutar. But in 106, saying
that limaaseh we should be machmir and assume the chaticha is assur.
#17 ‫שיעור‬- Tipas Chalav Shenafla al haKdeira
43
I. Yesod that bishul is mifapeia

A. Parshas Tzav 6:21- Kli cheres in which cook Kodshim, have to smash it. But if it’s
metal, do merika and shtifa b’mayim.
B. Gm Zevachim 96B- If used kli for kodshim and only part of the kli was on the fire, do
I have to merika and shtifa on the whole kli or just the part that was on the fire? GM
rejects limud from hazaas dam b/c dam isn’t mifapeia, but bishul is mifapeia, so should
need to do merika and shtifa on the whole thing.
II. What if tipa falls on outside of pot?

A. (I) Smag (Lo Saasei 140) – Based on gm Zevachim, whenever tipas chalav falls on
fleishig pot, assume it spreads throughout the whole kli and ‫חנ"ן‬, and have to be mishaeir
kineged the whole kli (usually will assur everything).
B. (II) Smak- Mechaleik btwn where it falls:

1. Kineged the rotev: mutar ‫ממ"נ‬. Either the milk spreads around whole pot and is
nisbatel, or sits in walls neged the rotev will be nisbatel in 60 of the rotev (b/c it will go
into the food itself).
2. Kineged reikan (no rotev in that area): Maybe tipa spread around and be
nisbatel, but maybe will sit in that area and spread 59 units more and won’t be nisbatel,
‫ חנ"ן‬in that spot, and now if empty the food kineged this area, will assur all the food.
*Therefore, if falls kineged reikan, leave the pot to cool off before pouring it out. Or, can
puncture whole in bottom of kli and let it come out through the bottom.
C. Mordechai Chullin 577 (96B)

1. Quotes Smak.
2. Minhag lihachmir when tipa falls kineged reikan, and assur.
3. Kineged ha’eish: If small amount falls kineged the fire, mutar ligamrei, b/c
assume fire burned it up, but if a lot spilled, even kineged fire, treated as if didn’t fall by
fire and regular dinim will apply.
3. Kula b’makom hefsed: R’ Yechiel: meikil in case of hefsed meruba, like erev
shabbos.
D. Hagahos Shaarei Dura (dinei bitul 74) – says same chiluk about falling kineged the
fire, and that not only is food mutar in that case, pot remains mutar as well. Quotes
Mordechai, and the chumra and kula.
1. Issur V’heter 31:2- Explains svara behind the chumra: Choshesh that some
rotev will bubble up to the spot of the issur and come back into the pot and assur
everything.
F. 92:5-7 ‫ – טור‬Quotes Smag, then (III) Maharam meRutenberg: if have 3600 kineged
the tipa, no problem b/c at most the tipa assured up to 60, so need 60 kineged that 60.
These two make no chiluk about where on pot it falls. Then quotes Smak, the chumra,
and the kula b’shaas hadchak of R’ Yechiel.
III. Halacha Limaaseh:

A. 92:5 ‫שו"ע‬-
44
1. ‫מחבר‬: quotes Smak (chiluk btwn kineged rotev and reikan), and adds that if
would pour out the food kineged the area that became assur, will assur the food.
[(a) 19 ‫ש"ך‬- Even when matir b/c tipa fell kineged the rotev, this is only to
be matir the tavshil, but the pot remains assur in all cases, except when tipa falls kineged
the fire, b/c always chashash that not all the milk came out or was nisbatel and now have
bb”ch in the pot, so have to remove the food from the pot immediately.]
(b) 20 ‫ש"ך‬- food only becomes assur if don’t have 3600 (60x60) kineged
the spot, but if you do have 3600, then food remains mutar even if poured it out. But
should pour on other side out of chashash of emi”l. And even ‫ רמ"א‬who was meikil by
kdeira chadasha as long as have 60 was only saying bidieved food is mutar, but not
saying can pour it out over that spot. Sounds like ‫ ש"ך‬thinks lichatchila should still let it
cool if possible.]
2. ‫רמ"א‬: Whole chashash kineged reikan is only if you’re using a kdeira yishana,
not chadasha.
(a) Pri Chadash 92:23- Since you’re using it now, doesn’t that make
every case one of yishana!? A. When cooking now, didn’t fill up the whole pot, so no
blia kineged reikan, so won’t have ‫ חנ"ן‬in spreading area b/c no taam basar there so won’t
assur. **Also, this whole issue with kineged reikan is only with open pot, but if pot is
covered, then everything is considered kineged the rotev, b/c everything is going up and
down.
B. 92:6-
1. ‫מחבר‬: minhag ha’olam is to be machmir when falls kineged reikan.
(a) 24 ‫ש"ך‬- Trumas HaDeshen who was very baki in minhagim didn’t
have this minhag to be machmir.
[(b) 20 ‫ט"ז‬- quotes Prisha: whole chumra is just not to pour it out, but
letting it cool is mutar even acc to the machmirim.]
[2. ‫ מחבר‬also mentions chiluk btwn whether little amount falls kineged the fire or
a lot. If a little, everything is mutar, ‫רמ"א‬: Even the pot is mutar. If a lot, if kineged
rotev and have 60, then mutar. ‫רמ"א‬: But the pot is assur in this case, and need to remove
the food immediately.
(a) 28 ‫ש"ך‬- and shouldn’t allow it to cool down b/c as long as leave it in
there, the issur may be mifapeia more and will come lidei bitul issur lichatchila (doesn’t
say this b’feirush, but others explain that this is the pshat [badei hashulchan?]).]
C. 92:7- there are those who are meikil b’shaas hadchak, like erev shabbos, even not
kineged rotev and not kineged ha’eish.
1. 22 ‫ט"ז‬- any shaas hadchak, orchim, etc. not just erev shabbos. 23- The kula is
that can pour it out from the other side b/c the kdeira is still assura, and don’t have to wait
for it to cool.
**R’ Simon- Why not pour it even over that spot? Lichora, worried about emi’l.
2. 30 ‫ש"ך‬- Should wait for it to cool down, but if really need it right away, can
pour it out along the other side.
45
D. Maadanei Asher siman 56- Quotes ‫ ש"ך‬and ‫ט"ז‬, and wants to say that they are
lishitasam: Acc to ‫ט"ז‬, who holds in 98:8 that ‫ חנ"ן‬in balua is a chumra, and brings raya
from our case here, so will be meikil b’shaas hadchak and assume no ‫ חנ"ן‬in balua and
that spot on kdeira is not assur (however, only allows to pour from other side so that
shouldn’t have problem of emi”l). However, ‫ש"ך‬, who holds in 98 that the ‫’ט"ז‬s raya
from here is no good, and thinks there is good evidence to say ‫ חנ"ן‬in balua, he really
prefers just letting it cool, and only allows pouring it out other side if real tzorech.
2 /4.07.08 -#18 ‫ שיעור‬Nissan 5768

Milchig Spoon placed in fleishig pot
I. Yedias HaTaaroves, needing more than just 60

A. Mishna Trumos 5:8- 1 unit of truma fell into 100 of chullin, and didn’t have to time
to be meirim: Rabanan: Assur. R’ Shimon: Mutar. B/c R’ Shimon holds since it was
rauy for harama, k’muram dami.
1. Bartenura: (Mashmaus)- Mach only in case of yedias hataaroves and need to
be meirim. In regular case, even Rabanan maskim that w/ yedia only need 60.
B. Smak- When dunk milchig spoon in fleishig pot, only need to be mishaeir kineged the
amount of spoon that went in. If put it in two times and no yedia inbetween, require 60 x
2, based on mishna in trumos.
1. Hagahos R’ Peretz- Some hold cham mikztaso cham kulo and would need 60
kineged the whole spoon.
C. Smak continues: Chilukim how we view spoon depending on case:
1. Ben yomo: Need 60 kingedo. If have 60, everything mutar, but spoon is assur.
If no 60, everything assur. Assur to put spoon in any pot, even bidieved it will assur.
2. Ein ben yomo: No need for 60, everything mutar, but spoon is assur to put in
any pot lichatchila.
D. 94:1 ‫טור‬- Quotes smak and R’ Peretz that require 60 kineged the whole spoon (cham
miktzaso cham kulo), and then require 2x 60 when dunk same spoon in 2x.
II. Where does requirement for 2x 60 come from?

A. Trumas HaDeshen 183-
1. The Chashash: Have 60 units of milk in the spoon, afraid that when stick in
first time, 59 units go into the chulent. At same time, another 59 units of meat went into
the spoon, and now were naases neveila from the 1 unit of milk in the spoon, and now
when put spoon back in, have another 60 units of bb”ch that comes in. Therefore, should
need 119 kineged 59 and then chashash of another 60.
2. Tzad Lihakeil: Old Rabbanim never were choshesh for this. Based on kula of
the Raavan: 2 parts to the heter:
(a) Mekushar: Fleishig pot ben yomo, meat inside, and milk falls on
outside, assume alliance between the meat inside the pot and meat in the walls of the pot
to be mivatel the milk that falls on the outside. Raya from case of filling barrels for three
46
24hr periods and pour it out to be machshir from yayin nesech. If didn’t say mekushar,
wine in walls could assur water that comes into the walls, send it into water in barrel and
assur the barrel again!
(b) ‫ חנ"ן‬in Balua- If don’t hold ‫ חנ"ן‬in balua, nothing to worry about at all.
(i) What does this have to do with the spoon?
- Assume that that which is in the spoon is connected to the rest of the meat in the pot and
will be mivatel that which is coming into the spoon to become assur from the 1 unit of
milk, never becomes bb”ch. And don’t worry about when you take the spoon out and no
longer mekushar, b/c now it’s already nechshav like a kli sheini. Or, don’t say ‫חנ"ן‬, so
never naases neveila inside the spoon.
B. Shaarei Dura Simann 55- Raya for Trumas HaDeshen/Raavan from din that
something balua can’t be mitamei something else balua (see Mechonos v’ateres shlomo
at bottom of page), so, too, something assur balua can’t assur something else balua.
III. Halacha Limaaseh

A. 94:1 ‫שו"ע‬-
1. ‫מחבר‬: Put milchig spoon in fleishig pot (or v”v), mishaeir kineged that which
was placed in the pot (‫רמ"א‬: as long as ben yomo). Yesh mi sheomer that cham
miktzaso cham kulo if it’s metal and need to be mishaeir against the whole spoon.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: assume like first deia, likula.
(a) 3 ‫ש"ך‬/Imrei Bina 2- Cham miktzaso cham kulo, only says kli can be
boleia even through part that isn’t in pot right now, but doesn’t allow the blia to
travel from one part of the kli to the other.
B. 94:2-
1. ‫מחבר‬: Put in 2x, need 2x 60.
(a) 4 ‫ש"ך‬- only choshesh up to 2x, b/c lishitasam that only worried about
‫ חנ"ן‬in bb”ch, and after 2nd time, already have bb”ch balua in spoon, and assuring
something new coming in would be like shaar issurim.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: only need 1x 60.
C. 94:3- If 60, e/thing mutar, spoon assur. And can’t place in anything, and assurs even
bidieved, if no 60 kinegdo as long as it’s ben yomo. No 60, everything assur b’hanaa.
But can put cold things in the pot.
D. 94:4- Spoon eino ben yomo, everything’s mutar, but spoon is assur to place in any
tavshil lichatchila, but doesn’t assur bidieved.
**Important to realize that will still say that the spoon is considered bb”ch, even if don’t
hold ‫ חנ"ן‬in balua b/c still have blias chalav and basar in this spoon that are mixed, just
not saying ‫חנ"ן‬.
IV. Issurim mivatlim ze es ze

A. 98:9 ‫שו"ע‬- Separate issurim, dam and chelev, are not mitztareif, ela if have 59 and
then one dam and one chelev, each one can be mitztareif with the 59 to be mivatel the
other.
47
B. Pri Megadim, Sifsei Daas 96:4-

1. Why don’t we say the same thing here, that the basar and chalav can be
mitztareif to be mivatel eachother (not clear to me, ask someone)? Explains that only say
this by two different issurim, but basar and chalav are chad issura hu.
2. Also asks, who needs it to be placed in 2x, why isn’t there the same issue if just
leave it in? Explains that as long as keep it in, then considered mekushar, and will never
make new issur in the spoon (but if wouild take it out, then no longer considered
mekusha, against svara of Trumas HaDeshen that as long as treated as kli sheini, no
problem. Either he thinks it’s not a kli sheini, or kli sheini is still a problem).
4 /4.09.08 -#19 ‫ שיעור‬Nissan 5768

Nat bar Nat
I. Source of the Din

A. Gm Chullin 111B – Fish placed on a plate (“alu bik’ara”) that has blias basar (either
fish or plate is hot), Shmuel says mutar to eat it with sour cream b/c it’s nosein taam bar
nosein taam (nat bar nat), and we pasken like Shmuel.
1. 41 ‫ר"ן‬A- We say nat bar nat only by heter, like basar and chalav, b/c since it’s
now taam sheini and still mutar, considered too weak to create an issur of Bb”ch.
II. What was the case? Machlokes Rishonim Alu davka or ‫?ל"ד‬
A. Beis Yosef 95:1- Only say nat bar nat if one or the other is hot, but if both the fish and
plate are hot, no heter. Midayeik from lashon of ‫טור‬.
B.‫ 'תוס‬Hilchisa- 2 deios:

1. Rivan from ‫רש"י‬: Davka alu. If were mivashel the fish in the fleishig pot,
that’s not nat bar nat, remains taam rishon. Brings raya from fact that don’t say nat bar
nat by davar charif, but ‫ ל"ד‬a good raya.
2. ‫ – )תוס' )ר"י‬Alu ‫ל"ד‬. Say nat bar nat even by bishul and tzli.
C. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 9:23- Alu ‫ל"ד‬, even bishul works.
D. 95:1/2 ‫שו"ע‬
1. ‫מחבר‬: Even bishul and tzli, mutar l’ochlam b’kutach once you already cooked it
in fleifhig pot.
2. ‫( רמ"א‬on 2): There are machmirim that if mivashel or tzole the fish assur to eat
with kutach, and minhag is to be machmir lichatchila, but Bidieved, mutar b’chol inyan.
III. Is this din lichatchila or only bidieved?

A. Hagahos Smak (R’ Peretz) - this din is only bidieved, but lichatchila assur to place
the fish in the fleishig pot in order to eat it with milchigs. But if it happened that already
cooked fish in fleishig pot and now want to eat it with yogurt, then we have this heter of
nat bar nat, if assume nisbashlu as well. The ‫ מחבר‬is clearly saying this as well.
3 ‫ ש"ך‬on ‫’רמ"א‬s din that assur lichatchila. Explains that we’re saying that assur to place
this fish with the yogurt if it was already cooked in the fleishig pot. However, bidieved,
48
if it was already mixed with the yogurt, now bidieved we allow you to eat it. (‫מחבר‬
would tell you that after cooked it in this pot, now bidieved can mix it with kutach, ‫רמ"א‬
would say can’t even mix it in, but if it was mixed in, now you can eat it).
IV. What if the pot is eino ben yomo? Can I cook in the eb’y milchig pot lichatchila w/
intention of using the food w/ meat? Machlokes Gra and Chachmas Adam:
A. 95:2 ‫רמ"א‬- If the kli you were tzole or mivashel in is eb”y, nohagin lichatchila to eat
the fish with the kutach.
1. Beiur HaGra 10- Usually gozer eb”y atu b”y. However, that’s only when
using a ben yomo would lead to real takala. But here, even if use it b”y, still have nat bar
nat and worst case you are relying on shitos that hold ‫ ל"ד‬alu. So no gzeira in this case.
And pashtus he means that mutar to cook this fish in fleishig pot lichatchila w/ intention
of eating it with kutach.
2. Chachmas Adam 48:2- Assur lichatchila to cook pareve food in eb’y fleishig
pot in order to put it together with milchigs b/c nt”l is assur lichatchila. However, if
don’t have another kli, then can be meikil to allow the person to use it (shaas hadchak
k’dieved dami, meaning if would have done it, would have matired the food, so b’shaas
hadchak we can allow it).
**Not clear if this is machlokes in understanding of the ‫רמ"א‬, or just that Gra argues with
the ‫רמ"א‬. In any event, R’ Abadie thinks one can rely on the svara of the Gra on his own,
to allow a person even to place the fish in the fleishig eb’y pot lichatchila (Sounded like
R’ Simon thought you needed some type of tzorech, check this).
V. Washing Dishes
- Used to be mivashel hot water in one pot and then places dirty dishes in the water to
wash them. Can I use a fleishig pot to wash milchig dishes by means of heter of nat bar
nat? Do we say that both the milchig and fleishig pot which have taam rishon in them
will both place nesinas taam sheini into the water and that’s taam sheini b’heter, and even
when they mix afterwards, already taam sheini?
‫רמב"ן‬- matirs this scenario for this reason. Assume taam goes into the water separately
and becomes taam sheini b’heter and now when they bump into eachother later, doesn’t
matter.
**This is how ‫ מחבר‬paskens in 95:3 ‫שו"ע‬, as long as there isn’t any shuman stuck on the
keilim.
Sefer HaTruma- can only wash these milchig dishes in fleishig pot (and v”v) if one of
them is eino ben yomo b/c otherwise, if both are b”y, then when each one sends out taam
sheini into water, they will immediately assur the water and not taam sheini b’heter, ela
b’issur, now all the water is assur and will assur the pots. (Also adds that really ‫ אה"נ‬a
taam sheini maybe could assur but that once it gets into the chalav it’s now a taam shlishi
and that’s too weak, need to be mivarer).
**This is the psak of the ‫ רמ"א‬in 95:3.
Sefer Siyach Yaakov- Could say the machlokes ‫ רמב"ן‬and Sefer HaTruma is whether we
see the taam as mixed into the water, or no, it can float in the water w/out getting mixed
49
in and they connect directly (taam sheini b’issur). But doesn’t want to say this, says a
different pshat.
Has ‫ נ"מ‬l’inyan our dishwashers as well. B/c even if there is shamnunis, the ‫ מחבר‬said you
just need to have 60 kineged the shamnunis which probably have in a dishwasher.
However, this would be lichatchila and is bishul. However, either way, the ‫ רמ"א‬is
machmir like the Sefer HaTruma, but washing them in same pot, but ze achar ze, that
would be mutar.
So what about using the same dishwasher for milchigs and then fleishigs b’ze achar ze?
Igros Moshe YD 2:28- Matirs this, and says ‫ רמ"א‬is bigger kula than me b/c ‫רמ"א‬
allowed even using the same water. When use the same dishwasher still using different
water. However, minhag in most places is to have one dishwasher, and use it for
milchigs or fleishigs, not even to rely on R’ Moshe.
**Sefer Magen B’adie- Syrian posek in community in Brooklyn, was matir the use of
#20- 4.14.08/ 9 Nissan 5768

Hechsher Keilim L’Pesach and Bb”ch
I. Source of din of Hechsher Keilim

A. Bamidbar 31:23- Things that are used in eish, put through eish. Those used in
mayim, put in mayim. Basically, kasher kli the way the blia went in. If cooked, hagala, if
roasted, libun.
B. What if the liquid medium is issur itself?

1. ‫ שו"ת‬Menachem Azaria (Maharam miPanu quoted in ‫ ש"ך‬YD 121:8) -
bishul is different from tzli b/c there is a buffer of heter. However, if there is no buffer
(i.e. cooking blood in the pot), need libun.
(a) This comes into play with tins. While being made, they get shmeared
with non-kosher fats. So three shitos:
(i) Have to kasher the tins w/ hagala.
(ii) Have to do libun (Maharam MiPanu)
(iii) R’ Ovadia- all nifsal anyways and can use the tin as is.
II. Pot used sometimes for bishul, sometimes for tzli

A. ‫ ר"ן‬Kol Shaa 8b- Always go acc to the rov tashmish of the kli. If mostly used through
bishul, only need to kasher with hagala. If usually used with eish, use libun.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬O”ch 451:6-
1. ‫מחבר‬: Keilim go basar rov tashmisho. Therefore, when comes to plates, even
though sometimes use it as a kli rishon, since usually only used as something on which
we are meare from kli rishon, so hechshero is w/ irui kli rishon.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: quotes machmirim not to follow rov tashmisho.
C. But how could anyone ever say rov tashmisho? Once have blia in more chamurdika
thing, should be finished already?!
50
1. Mekor Chaim hilchos pesach (‫ )נתיבות‬- Quotes ‫ שו"ת‬Menachem Azarya that

since dealing with eb”y, Chazal were only matriarch to me machshir kineged rov
tashmisho. Heim amru v’heim amru.
2. Igros Moshe O”ch 5:31:6 (p. 108) – similar idea, the whole reason we’re
being machshir is so that shouldn’t forget that we generally have to be machshir, so only
worried about that which ppl might forget, dhaynu, the rov tashmish. And obviously
when it comes to ben yomo, need hagala chamura even if used just one time in the other
situation.
III. Heteira Bala and its implications on Pesach and with Bb’ch
A. Gm AZ 76A- Talking about kashering kodshim and want to compare hagalas issur,
and gm says what’s the connection? By kodshim it’s heteira bala?!
**Heteira bala => even keilim nivla through eish, hagala works to weaken the
taam as long as that taam is heter right now, and this prevents issur from ever setting in.
But question is, ‫ אה"נ‬kodshim is hetera bala, what about Chametz?
1. ‫ ר"ן‬Pesachim 8A- Chametz is hetera bala, its davar heter before Pesach.
2. ‫( רמב"ן‬quoted by ‫ )ר"ן‬- Chametz is issura bala b/c has shem chametz on it
even before Pesach. And mashma from ‫ רי"ף‬this way as well.
 This is talking even about eino ben yomo, and will determine whether all keilim that
are used for tzli by Pesach require Libun or just Hagala.
B. ‫ שו"ע‬Hilchos Pesach 451:4- Assume chametz is issura bala, require libun for keilim
used b’eish (like ‫)רמב"ן‬.
C. 452:1 ‫מחבר‬- Be careful to be magil keilim before 5th hour on erev Pesach, so that don’t
have to be worried if it’s b’y or not (‫רמ"א‬- or if need 60 or not).
**Looks like a stira! Mashma from this halacha that ‫ מחבר‬thinks chametz is
hetera bala, even though one siman before says b’feirush its issura bala!? (Generally,
only magil eb”y shema don’t have 60. However, if something is hetera bala, then will
have nat bar nat even w/out 60 b/c taam sheini b’heter in the water, so when it comes
back into the pot won’t re-assur it).
- Have to say a chiluk btwn nat bar nat where we are meikil, as opposed to
chametz nival through eish. (Again, have Gra who is never bothered by stiros in ‫)מחבר‬.
D. Pri Megadim 461:1 (Eshel Avraham) - this idea of hetera bala vs issura bala is only
before the issur sets in. The whole idea of hetera bala by hagala is only to do the hagala
before any issur has set in.
E. ‫ 'רמ‬Maaseh Korbanos- when doing hechsher keilim for Kodshim to prevent nosar,
have to do it ekev achila. ‫ ראב"ד‬disagrees. Some thought that this meant immediately
after you eat it so that nosar shouldn’t set in (R’ Soloveitchik).
IV. Kashering Frying Pans (Is this really bishul or tzli?)

A. ‫ רא"ש‬Pesachim 2:7- My father said it needs libun, but I think only needs hagala and
that’s the minhag
B. ‫מחבר‬:
1. YD 121:4- Issur: need libun.
51
2. O”ch 451:11- Pesach: only need hagala. (‫ מחבר‬himself mentions the chiluk).
(a) Beiur HaGra YD 121:9- By Pesach, always have another tzad kula
that maybe chametz is hetera bala. Similar to sfeik sfeika (R’ Schachter): Maybe only
need hagala meikar hadin, and even if really need libun, maybe hetera bala and still
would only need hagala. ‫ משא"כ‬by issur, only have one safeik, does it need hagala or
libun, so we’re machmir.
**R’ Simon was meir the following: What if a goy would use a frying pan to make
scrambled eggs? There is safeik by bishul akum whether or not it assurs the pot, so
maybe would also only require hagala b/c have similar sfeik sfeika.
(b) ‫ ש"ך‬YD 121:8- Says similar svara as Gra, and says that therefore, even
meat frying pan that used for milk, only need hagala b/c hetera bala(svara not clear to me
(c) ‫ ש"ך‬quotes Maharam miPanu who makes different chiluk: Goy’s
frying pan, he uses non-kosher oil/fats, no heter medium, so need libun. However, when
Jew is using it for chametz, there is kosher oil which is buffer of heter, so only need
hagala. And concludes, therefore, that even w/ milk and meat frying pans should need
libun b/c no medium btwn the fleishig pan and the milk.
V. Kashering Ovens for Pesach

A. Self-Cleaning Ovens
1. Assuming oven needs kashering in first place (there are those who think ovens
aren’t a problem at all b/c of vents), only talking about zeia, not like old ovens where
used to put the bread on the walls. Either way, most chamur thing to do is libun chamur,
and self-cleaning ovens take care of that likulei alma, so nothing to worry about.
B. Non-self-cleaning Ovens
1. R’ Moshe- libun is absolute ‫שיעור‬, so without it, even though your oven never
got that hot, then have to blow torch the entire oven.
2. The Rav- say kibolo kach polto by oven as well, so since can’t get hotter than
highest setting on oven, all you need is highest setting. (Also, only talking about zeia in
first place and who said zeia and real tzli are equally chamur.)
(a) 451:14 ‫שו"ע‬- If put covering on hot pot, need libun.
(i) MA- Not just dealing with zeia, but the cover will sometimes
touch the food itself.
*Generally, though, libun kal works when talking about something that needs hagala, and
assume that libun kal would be enough for zeia.
C. Grates on stove-top (See ‫ שיעור‬at end of hilchos taaroves)

1. 451:4 ‫רמ"א‬- Chatzuva tzarich libun. And lichora most similar thing we have to
chatzuva is the grate on top of the stovetop.
2. Igros Moshe YD 1:58- Can be machmir for Pesach as chumra b’alma, but
wouldn’t have to be machmir by shaar issurim b/c ein blia yotzei mekli l’kli bli rotev so
no reason at all to be machmir.
D. Warming Drawer
52
**R’ Simon wanted to maybe extend this to case of warming drawer which can’t get hot
enough to do libun can you use it on Pesach. Maybe could say since also only question
of kli to kli and by Pesach even R’ Moshe was saying it’s only a chumra, maybe in case
of tzorech would be mutar.
VI. Basar B’Chalav in this whole discussion

- Lichora, would assume it’s hetera bala when they are separate milk and meat, except for
maybe the maharam miPanua. However, once they are together, real bb’ch, for sure
should say issura bala.
A. ‫ שו"ע‬HaRav 451:13 in Haara: Even once basar and chalav are mixed, even with blia
al yidei ha’eish, still only need hagala. How is this possible? B/c eish causes a deeper
blia, but won’t be so strong b/c by time it gets there already shvach, so in depths of kli
won’t have bb”ch. All bb”ch is going on in the external part of the kli, which hagala can
get to. This is b/c we have taam basar going into kli that has taam chalav, so deep in,
bb”ch won’t be created. But when talking about chametz or issur, even if the issur is
deep in, still there is taam kalush of issur in there. (Still pretty big chidush b/c this is after
the issur bb”ch has already been chal everywhere else in the kli). Good tzad lihakeil to
know about.
B. Issur V’heter (Hagalas Keilim 58:23) is against this b’feirush. And pashtus we hold
this way.
#21 ‫שיעור‬- Efer Ha’Pogeim
I. ‫’מחבר‬s chidush and those who argue

A. ‫ מחבר‬-95:4 ‫שו"ע‬: When washing dishes, if put ashes in the hot water in the pot before
placing milchig and fleishig keilim in, even if there is b’ein on one of them, still mutar
b/c the ashes will be pogeim the b’ein [b/c even though now have taam lifgam going back
into the dish, still mutar this will be techilas bliaso lifgam, like we say by hagalas keilim
of eb’y].
B. Application: Dinners in Hotels/Halls that also have non-kosher events:
They can’t wait 24 hrs, and don’t have keilim that are 60 kineged the kli. Ela,
take vat put ammonia in the vat of hot water. Then place many utensils in at once, now
any blia that comes out will be nifgam by the ammonia, and then when the taam goes
back into the utensils, its techilas bliaso lifgam, mutar ligamrei (like a hagala of eb”y).
Most hechsherim rely on this kula, as this is the din of the ‫מחבר‬. Some argue,
we’ll see why.
C. 21 ‫ש"ך‬- No one else ever mentioned this halacha, ‫ מחבר‬didn’t even mention it in Beis
Yosef. And even more, mashma in poskim that always need 60 to be magil b”y kli.
Thinks ‫ מחבר‬is against ‫ 'תוס‬Chullin 100A: Machlokes R’ Ephraim and ‫ ר"ת )חנ"ן‬by shaar
issurim). Acc to R’ Ephraim understand how Torah has hagalas keilim by kli gadol b/c
won’t say ‫ חנ"ן‬in the water, can just fill pot with water 2x. But acc to ‫ר"ת‬, can never be
53
machshir the big keilim!? Says the ‫ש"ך‬, if could just pour efer in there, why doesn’t ‫'תוס‬
give this teretz for ‫ !?ר"ת‬Leaves ‫ מחבר‬as ‫צ"ע‬.
1. Pri Chadash- Doesn’t understand ‫’ש"ך‬s kasha:
(a) ‫ 'תוס‬is talking about pure hagala w/out a/thing mixed in.
(b) Even if think efer isn’t pogeim, s/thing else will be.
(c) ‫ 'תוס‬can’t bring this teretz b/c of the Orchos Chaim (below).
D. 15 ‫ט"ז‬- Asks on ‫ מחבר‬from 2 cases:

1. Make shampoo in kli made of bb”ch from efer (87:6), a problem even though
there’s efer there. Why isn’t that kli mutar?
2. Quotes Maharil: Child says soap fell into the tavshil, and there was chelev and
efer in the soap. Says mutar b/c aren’t somechon katan, mashma that if would have
trusted the child, would have assured, even though there is efer there?!
[Nekudas HaKesef 2: These aren’t kashas b/c these are cases where have guf hachelev
and guf of bb”ch here, so efer isn’t enough to be pogeim. ‫ מחבר‬was only saying its
enough to be pogeim the little shamnunis left on the kli.]
II. Relevant Machlokes: Hagala davka in water or even in shaar mashkim?

A. Gm Chullin 108B- W/ regard to milk, while boiling, mivla bala, miflat lo palat.
1. ‫רמב"ן‬: Can’t be true that water won’t be maflit as long as its boiling b/c then
can never have hagala? Answers that gm is talking about milk. Shaar mashkim won’t be
maflit, but water will be. Therefore, can only do hagala in water.
2. 503 ‫רשב"א שו"ת‬: Quotes ‫רמב"ן‬, and that he even said a chidush that water
won’t be mavlia, and then could even be magil in water w/out 60. ‫ רשב"א‬argued with his
rebbi, thinks can do hagala even in shaar mashkim.
(a) Acc to ‫רמב"ן‬, when cook piece of neveila in a pot, that pot shouldn’t be
treif b/c water isn’t mavlia?
(b) Gzhk of mayim v’lo mazeg was only by kodshim (merika u’shtifa).
‫ רמב"ן‬didn’t give real answer, so ‫ רשב"א‬argued with him.
B. Application: Pareve Chocalate: Use same machines for milk chocolate, but even a
little bit of water can destroy a whole vat of chocolate. So won’t risk it to be magil the
chocolate machine with water, so do hechsher keilim with chocolate, oil, etc. (shaar
mashkim). R’ Schachter writes, but aren’t there shitos that this is ok and usually shaas
hadchak b’dieved is k’lichatchila dami? Yeah, but who says that the neccesity for pareve
chocolate?
C. Beis Yosef O”ch 452- brings machlokes ‫ רשב"א‬and ‫רמב"ן‬. Quotes from Orchos
Chaim that if have efer in the water, considered shaar mashkim.
D. 452:5 ‫רמ"א‬- Lichatchila, assume like ‫רמב"ן‬, but bidieved, can rely on ‫ רשב"א‬that can
do hagala in shaar mashkim. Does not quote the Orchos Chaim.
** This din of ‫ רמב"ן‬combined with Orchos Chaim presents a problem for hotel dinner
shayla: If we assume like ‫רמ"א‬, that should only do hagala in water, and like the Orchos
Chaim, that when add efer to the water that makes shaar mashkim, then when put the
54
utensils in the ammonia water you’re not accomplishing anything, just putting them in
shaar mashkim, which won’t be maflit at all. Therefore, there are hechsherim who are
choshesh for the Orchos Chaim and first place the utensils in the ammonia water, which
makes the taam in the utensils pagum, now these keilim are effectively eb”y, and then
they do hagala on them in another pot only water. The Pri Chadash raises this problem
(see above), and the Pleisi gives this explanation as a defense for the ‫ש"ך‬:
E. Pleisi: This is what the ‫ ש"ך‬meant: ‫ 'תוס‬should have given this teretz: Should first
place the dish in the efer water, and then go ahead and do another hagala in regular
water!? B/c even by R’ Ephraim, have to do hagala 2x in the same kli with water, so ‫ר"ת‬
could have also said do a 2-step process.
F. Chavas Daas: Argues with the Pleisi: ‫אה"נ‬, efer can be pogeim taam that comes out
into the water, but who says that the efer can go into a kli and be pogeim the taam
inside!?
**So if hold like the Chavas Daas and the Orchos Chaim, have no way out by the Hotel
dinner, need to wait 24 hours. Most places assume not like the Orchos Chaim, and just
do one hagala in the ammonia water, some do a second hagala just in water, assuming not
like the chavas daas. Yeshivas Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin only uses halls that will wait full
24 hours.
G. ‫ שו"ת‬Chacham Tzvi 101- Asks many of the same kashas on the ‫ש"ך‬, and concludes
that yesh lifsok like the ‫מחבר‬. Seems to not be choshesh for the ‫ ש"ך‬at all.
H. Shaylas Yaavatz (quoted in Yad Ephraim) – Wants to argue that placing the efer in
the water to be magil in it is problem of emi”l, and that’s why ‫ 'תוס‬didn’t give that
answer. But Yad Ephraim argues that only say emi”l when coming to be mivatel the
issur while it’s intact, but to make a taam pagum is not problem of emi”l, and says he saw
this is Chacham Tzvi [who is R’ Yaakov Emden’s father] (above).
I. Tzemach Tzedek (Krochmal) - Addresses ‫’ט"ז‬s shaylos. Says our soap is definitely
pagum, but not clear if can do this lichatchila.
J. Binyan Yaakov- What if put the efer in afterwards? Says that acc to Chavas Daas, for
sure would be assur b/c keilim were niflat into the water and became assur immediately,
and putting efer in later won’t help b/c efer can’t be pogeim taam already in the kli.
#22 ‫שיעור‬-Davar Charif
*Din of davar can trump two of our most basic yesodos:

1) Nat bar nat by davar charif is assur
2) Nosein Taam Lifgam can become shvach in a davar charif
I. Sugya #1- nat bar nat
55
A. Gm Chullin 112B- Dagim shealu b’kaara mutar to eat b’kutach, but radish (tznon)
that was cut w/ fleishig knife, assur to eat with kutach b/c its sharpness causes it to be
boleia. Gm seems to be telling us that davar charif trumps nat bar nat. 2 Questions:
1. Maybe this din applies davka by tznon?
2. Maybe this gm has nothing to do with nat bar nat!? Maybe just saying that
charifus is not enough to counteract b’ein?
B. ‫ רש"י‬has these two pshatim (‫ 'תוס‬and ‫ רא"ש‬quote them as well)
1. S/times the shamnunis gets stuck on the knife and eino nikar and when cut
tznon, its nosein taam haba min hamamash.
2. Charifus and duchka d’sakina allow the blia to be nivla in the tznon like a taam
rishon.
C. Hagahos HaSmak 214- quotes machlokes rishonim on first issue:

1. R’ Yechiel: davar charif only applies to tznon and chilsis.
2. Sefer HaTruma: Tznon is ‫ל"ד‬. Other dvarim charifim are included in this din.
II. Sugya #2- Nosein Taam Lifgam

A. Gm AZ 39A- Mishna quotes items that if you get from a goy, assur to eat. One of
these items is a chilsis, if it was cut up by a non-Jew. Why? B/c he cut it with his knife.
What about nt”l mutar? The potency of the chilsis is so great that it reinvigorates the
taam and it becomes lishvach in the chilsis.
- This gm seems to say that davar charif trumps din of nt”l, but we can ask the same two
questions again:
1. Maybe davka chilsis?
2. Maybe has nothing to do with taam? Maybe we’re just talking about a knife that
has b’ein on it?!
B. ‫ רא"ש‬AZ 2:38- Quotes Maharam MeRutenberg (R’ Meir) about cutting tznon with
eb”y knife: Argues with Rabbeinu Baruch:
1. Why say chilsis, which is the most intense? Mention weaker ones and we’ll
know chilsis from k’v? [Chilsis burns stomach of animal and assume it’s a treifa
(Chullin 58B)].
2. Gm Chullin 111B is by b’y, need tznon b/c of nat bar nat, but for nt”l, need
davka chilsis.
* In end, paskens like Sefer Hatruma, to be machmir, but won’t be moche on those who
follow R’ Yechiel to be meikil.
C. ‫ ריטב"א‬AZ- Whole case of gm is talking about shamnunis on the knife, and saying
that the shamnunis doesn’t become pagum when mixed with chilsis. Not even chilsis can
reconstitute a taam once it’s pagum!?
D. 497 ‫רשב"א שו"ת‬: Davar charif will only trump nt”l in the davar charif itself. Won’t
do so in a kli b/c im kein ein lidavar sof, and Torah should have required hagala by eb’y
as well b/c might use davar charif inside it!?
- Maybe davka chilsis, and the reason the Torah didn’t require hagala by eb’y is b/c its
only a problem by chilsis and it’s eino schiach.
56
- Even better would be to say like the ‫ ריטב"א‬and say that the whole discussion is by
shamnunis.
**‫חזו"א‬: Apparently we dismiss the ‫ ריטב"א‬b/c not even quoted in ‫שו"ע‬. Not even used as
snif in sfeik sfeika.
III. Apparent stira in ‫ מחבר‬and its solutions

A. 3 different ‫’מחבר‬s:
96:1- Tznon or silka (beets) that cut with fleishig knife b’y or just not wiped off, assur to
eat with milk. Also quotes yesh omrim that even eb”y is assur.
96:3- Spices pounding in fleishig pestel b’y are assur to eat with milk. Doesn’t quote 2nd
opinion (eb”y), ‫ רמ"א‬does.
103:6- Yesh mi sheomer that if cook pepper in kdeira shel issur eb”y, e/thing is assur b/c
charifus makes it shvach. Doesn’t quote opinion of davka ben yomo.
B. The Kasha:
1. 96:10 ‫ט"ז‬- strange, b/c in 103:6 he paskens even eb”y would be assur!?
C. Three Answers:
1. 2 -96:9 ‫ רע"א‬sfeikos: 1) Can only tznon trump nb”n? 2) Can only chilsis trump
eb”y? Whenever have both sfeikos, can be meikil. However, as long as only have one,
have to be machmir.
(a) By 96:3, when spices are in b’y pestel, no need to trump eb’y b/c
dealing with b’y, so only have one safeik, can non-tznon trump nb’n, have to assume yes,
lihachmir. However, if it was an eb’y, would have two sfeikos, [maybe spices can’t
trump eb”y and maybe they can’t trump nb’n] then can be meikil.
(b) By 103:6, have eb’y pot, but dealing with bishul, so no safeik about
nb’n, always taam rishon. Only one safeik [can pepper trump eb”y], have to be machmir,
assume it can.
2. Pri Megadim/Pleisi- Davar charif can only perform one of the two actions at a
time. Can’t do both. Therefore, when it has to do both, meikil [either nb”n or eb’y wins
out]. When only need it to do one, then will be machmir.
3. Pri Tohar (Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh)- thinks ‫ מחבר‬was simply chozer bo. In
114:9 says that shouldn’t let goyim cut certain charif fruits with their knives, even though
davar shel heter.
IV. Halacha Limaaseh

A. 96:1 ‫שו"ע‬-
1. ‫מחבר‬: If cut radish or beet with ben yomo fleishig knife, can’t eat with milk
until take netilas makom or taste it. Yesh omrim even eb”y. If don’t take netilas makom,
need 60 kineged area of knife that touched the radish.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: If cut into small pieces, need 60 kineged whole thing, and lichatchila
always assur the whole radish, but bidieved only area of the knife. Vegetable part of
radish not included in this halacha. Safeik likula. Therefore, can buy radishes cut at the
57
back side b/c can be tole that they were cut w. mara v’chatzina (13 ‫ש"ך‬- and even if it
was w/ a knife, assume it’s eb”y). And if can only buy cut radishes, can buy them and
take off netilas makom.
B. 96:2- other dvarim charifim have same din as a radish.
C. 96:3- ‫מחבר‬: spices smashed in b”y crusher assur to eat with milchigs. ‫ הה"נ‬:‫ רמ"א‬for
eb”y.
V. More Ha’aros from the Achronim

A. Pri Chadash- if want to follow R’ Baruch by nb’n case by tznon, and apply to other
things, fine b/c everyone but R’ Yechiel agrees with this. But question of reinvigorating
eb”y is totally different din.
- There are svaros to say that when dealing with onions in a frying pan. Always
discussion about frying pans whether need hagala or libun, gra said that when have sfeik
sfeika can just do hagala. So when it comes to frying pan, maybe will have the sfeik
sfeika to say just hagala. SEE INSIDE
B. 449 ‫רשב"א שו"ת‬- din of davar charif only applies if that’s the main thing in the kdeira.
If cooking a milchig onion omelette in fleishig frying pan that’s eino ben yomo, wouldn’t
say the din of davar charif. And this is quoted in 122:3 ‫ שו"ע‬in ‫רמ"א‬.
C. Magen Avraham O”ch 451:31- take fleishig knife and cut Zangvil (davar charif),
then grind it up with a grinder, so taam of meat goes into the grinder (stays taam rishon
b/c all davar charif), and now grind other bsamim with that grinder and eat that with milk
is assur b/c all taam rishon.
D. Even Ha’Ozer in Yalkut Meforshim 96:3- Argues with Magen Avrohom: Din that
davar charif trumps nb”n is only from kli into the charif ochel. But when it goes from the
davar charif into the kli, now it can become taam sheini.
*Ppl ask shaylas all the time about blenders that put onions in that were cut w/ fleishig
knife, and then blended it in their blender, does it become fleishig/bb”ch? Will often
depend on this machlokes. Many poskim are meikil like the even ha’ozer in these cases,
and say that the blade on the blender has din of taam sheini, so if put milchigs in there,
won’t say you made bb”ch.
E. Chachmas Adam- what if the cutting board is the thing that’s assur? FILL IN
**R’ Abadie likes to say that if davar charif is cooked will lose its charifus and won’t be
considered davar charif, except for things that are very potent, like pepper.
#23 ‫שיעור‬- Issur of Milchig and Fleishig Bread

A. Gm Pesachim 30A- Shmeared oven with fat and then baked bread in that oven, bread
is assur b/c might come to eat it with milchigs. Also, issur of kneading dough with milk.
58
B. Gm Pesachim 36A- Mentions issur of making milchig bread, but gives heter: When
make bread “k’ein tora”.
1. ‫רש"י‬- Small, like the eye of an ox. Will eat all of it right away, so no chashash
that it will be leftover and then forget it’s milchig.
2. 8) ‫רי"ף‬A) – Heker in shape of bread that it’s milchig (shape of an ox).
(a) Aruch HaShulchan- based on Mishna Kilaim 2:1(Rosh Tor) and ‫'רמ‬
that Torei Zahav ,jewelry in shape of a triangle, thinks bread in shape of a triangle.
C. Hagahos Shaarei Dura- both ‫ רש"י‬and ‫’'תוס‬s pshatim are good svaros, can go with
either one. Also, mutar to bake shabbos challah in oven with fleishigs b/c considered a
davar muat when baking the bread for shabbos b/c will use up the bread during shabbos.
1. Bach 97:1- For us, who leave bread over after shabbos, this heter doesn’t
apply. So will need the ‫’רי"ף‬s heter. And since this is dirabanan, can be meikil and
follow only one shita, but if want to follow both, tavo alav bracha.
D. ‫ רמ"א‬Toras Chatas 60:2- Thinks there’s no problem of making milchig bread for
shavuos, b/c looks different, and is eaten on that day. B/c davar muat is as long as it will
be eaten in one day.
II. Limaaseh
A. 97:1 ‫שו"ע‬- Quotes the issur, and both heterim, and ‫ רמ"א‬brings heterim for shabbos
and shavuos.
B. Pischei Teshuva 3:
1. Maharit- this shinui only works for your own house b/c other ppl won’t
realize, so can’t sell such bread. Also, issur only applies when there is chashash that will
eat it with milk, but sweetened bread items, which won’t eat with milk, dayeinu with that
which chazal already assured. Pashtus referring to pas haba b’kisnin.
2. Chavas Daas: Shinui must be at the time of the baking b/c afterwards it
already has chalos issur on it. ‫הה"נ‬, can’t make a big bread and break it up b/c already
neesar.
C. 1 ‫ט"ז‬- Pareve Grinder that use for spices to be put in milchig and fleishig foods, if
ground a davar charif with meat, now the grinder isn’t just fleishig, it’s assur ligamrei.
B/c it’s something that we usually think is pareve, if it’s fleishig I might make a mistake,
so we assur it ligamrei (until you kasher it).
D. Pri Chadash 97:1-

1. Disagrees with ‫ט"ז‬. Says the issur was by bread b/c eat it w/ meat and milk.
However, things that were pareve and become fleishig, ppl can be careful not to use it for
milchigs. B/c otherwise should assur any kli that you’re magil from milchigs to fleishigs
b/c might make a mistake!
2. Quotes shayla asked to the Maharit:Town where used shuman instead of oil in
certain cakes, since it becomes mefursam and e/one knows, then no longer an issur. And
even though Pri Chadash does seem to be worried about ppl visiting who don’t know
about this and can come to takala, R’ Simon raised possibility that in our days where
59
everyone knows everything about every community in the world, maybe no din orchim
anymore.
E. Kreisi also says they had this in their town, e/one knew they made milchig bread, so it
was mutar. Pleisi- seems to argue with Chavas Daas and says can give it out to many ppl
after the fact. Footnote 4- If can be mechaleik, why should the pas ever be assura, just
give it out!? But gm says assura? So quotes a bunch of achronim who make chiluk
btwn shogeig and meizid.
F. Tzemach Tzedek- Has discussion about white wine. Grapes weren’t so good and
white wine wasn’t so white. Wanted to put milk in it, also some chametz. Is there a
problem of milchig wine? And this was a case of hefsed meruba that no one was going to
buy it b/c it doesn’t look nice. And amount they put it was for sure batel b’60, so even if
the guy would eat it with meat, wouldn’t really be an issue.
- This is violation of emi”l b/c there is issur to make milchig wine and putting in milk, so
milk is nechshav like issur. And would say the same din by bread.
1. Magen Avraham O”ch 447- Quotes Tzemach Tzedek, who said this was issur
as well in terms of pesach b/c also mixed chametz in there as well. Disagrees: if you
were interested in drinking the chalav then may have problem of emi”l, but here just
interested in the way it looks, so doesn’t think it applies.
III. Pas Haba B’Kisnin

A. Aruch HaShulchan 97:7- At first, thinks there’s a problem of milchig cake, but
quotes case of maharit, and is matir any case where it’s mefursam that these items are
milchig. Is still worried about visitors, though, and leaves it as ‫ צ"ע‬lidina.
B. Maadanei Asher siman 74- Medayeik from Maharit’s statement that if not derech to
eat with milk, no problem of sweetened bread things that if it was derech to eat with milk,
would be problem  pas haba b’kisnin is included in the gzeira. Quotes from R’ Dovid
Ostrof that items that e/one knows come in both milchig and pareve issur doesn’t apply
b/c e/one knows to be careful. M”a thinks there is raya for this idea from Pri Chadash’s
chiluk btwn grinders and bread, that grinders ppl will be careful about b/c ppl sometimes
have milchig ones, sometimes fleishig. Bottom line: If e/one knows that these can be
pareve, milchig, or fleishig, then thinks there is no issur.
5.08.08/3 -#24 ‫ שיעור‬Iyar 5768

B’inyan Issur Shenishtane
-Until now, only spoke about issur that was nifsal. This is something that original state
was assur and rauy l’achila, and now it is also rauy l’achila, but went through a serious
change, so some rishonim think that in this case we say paka issura.
I. Source of the heter: Question what Mor is?

A. ‫ 'רמ‬Klei Mikdash 1:1- mor is blood of chaya temeia and then transformed into a
spice.
60
B. ‫ראב"ד‬- can’t be that Mor comes from dam chaya temeia b/c wouldn’t put such a thing
on the mizbeach. So thinks mor comes from vegetation.
C. Kesef Mishna- Quotes ‫ רמב"ן‬who also doesn’t like this pshat. But he says it’s not a
problem b/c its nishtane.
D. R’ Yona Brachos (31B dapei ‫)רי"ף‬- agrees that mor comes from vegetation, but
thinks that mushka does refer to this dam chaya which changes to spice. Rabbeinu Meir
assured it b’achila b/c it comes from dam, but doesn’t think this is correct, can eat it b/c
considered like pirush b’alma, and basar hashta azlinan, in present form it’s a davar heter.
E. ‫ רא"ש‬Brachos 6:35- also quotes R’ Meir who doesn’t hold from idea of issur
shenishtane.
II. Attack on the heter and possible teirutzim
A. Magen Avraham 3, Hilchos Birchos HaReiach 216: Questions the heter:
2 Kashas:
1. Gm Bechoros 6b: 2 possibilities why chalav should be assur:
(a) Yotzei from ever min hachai.
(b) Milk comes from dam (Dam neechar v’naase chalav).
Q. If there is heter of issur shenishtane, what’s hava amina that should be assur b/c of
dam? It’s issur shenishtane!? Ela mai, must be that the gm doesn’t hold from such a
heter! And don’t tell me we should learn from fact that limaaseh chalav is mutar b/c
don’t learn from Chidushim.
(a) Machtzis haShekel- B/c were two reasons to assur the milk and
pasuk comes to be matir, see that this is special din by milk, not makor for a yesod of
issur shenishtane.
2. Gm Temura 31A: efroach beitzas treifa is mutar b/c in process of becoming
beitza, becomes like afar and then the efroach becomes an efroach. Why does the gm
have to say it becomes like afar? Just say since its being reconstituted into an efroach,
nishtane, even without it becoming nisrach inbetween!? Ela mai, just changing wouldn’t
be enough.
-Also, when talk about the feet of the bees being in the dvash, maybe has nothing to do
with issur shenishtane, maybe just b/c they don’t have shem ochel.
B. ‫חזו"א‬: Q. How could it be that dam shebishlu is mutar and chalav is assur b/c it comes
from dam? Anwers: Dam shebishlu is assur b/c it’s done by humans, ‫ משא"כ‬chalav for
which part of the natural progression is for the dam to become chalav, and all the dam
creates the chalav, similar to a yotzei min ha’assur.
[Could be a teretz to the MA’s kashas b/c if view Chalav as birth of dam, not the dam
itself changing, then could say that both kashas are not talking about nishtane at all, so no
kasha].
III. How do we pasken limaaseh?

A. Magen Avraham negates the whole thing.
B. Pri Megadim (MZ 8)- Put musk your tavshil and have more than 60, and assume
milsa d’avida litaama lo batel is din dirabanan, then have safeik whether hold like R’
Yona or MA, and safeik dirabanan likula. But if hold mdal”t lo batel is midoraysa, then
can still be meikil: If hold it’s dam, then not mdal”t, and if it’s spices, then not assur at
61
all, it was nishtane, mutar ligamrei. And in terms of emi”l, no problem to put it in
lichatchila b/c emi”l is only din dirabanan.
C. Mishna Berura 216:7- If don’t have 60, shouldn’t be somech on R’ Yona, if have 60,
then can be somech on R’ Yona.
 R’ Shachter – Mishne Berura is making psak that by issur dirabanan can rely on issur
shenishtane and don’t say so by issur doraysa. (This is basically what the Pri Megadim is
saying when says that by yoser m’60 mutar, which is a safeik dirananan).
D. ‫ שו"ת‬Chassam Sofer 117: Talks about making oil out of grapes. Seems to assume
that nishtane does work, and meikil when not sure if was nishtane or not by issurei
dirabanans.
E. Chok Yaakov: Dvash that may have had chametz in it. Quotes R’ Yona, and Magen
Avrohom’s kashas on R’ Yona. Gm Says that chalav comes from the dam, so really
should be assur altz dam, and has to be nishtane to davar heter, but it has only been
nishtane to milk, and we don’t yet know that milk is davar heter, so can’t say heter of
issur shenishtane b/c don’t yet know if chalav is heter. But by dvash, if it turns into
dvash, which is davar heter, then issur shenishtane applies.
F. B’ikvei HaTzon 27- Chassam Sofer would have matired his case b/c of issur
shenishtane, and we could be matir stam yeinam even if we don’t hold from it b/c we do
by issurei dirabanan. . And this is nogeia to kitniyos which are just a minhag.
So corn syrup which is changed to become sorbitol. Could say that don’t even need to
get kosher l’pesach Coca Cola b/c even the kitniyos is nishtane to Sorbitol. But says that
it’s not true b/c wine to vinegar is still assur, not called nishtane (gm AZ), says that there
needs to be significant change in the taste, not just chemical change. But if corn syrup is
made into ascorbic acid, this is mutar b/c taste is changed altogether and would be mutar.
III. Discussion about Whiskey

A. **‫ ר' חיים‬Ozer: has discussion of whiskey (Some whiskey’s are made of wine). Wine
was nishtane, and only issur dirabanan. Says it’s taluy on machlokes ‫ מחבר‬and ‫ רמ"א‬by
hilchos stam Yeinam. Issur dirabanan on this wine. But is there an issur hanaa on stam
yeinam?
YD 123:1- ‫מחבר‬: Assur b’hanaa. ‫רמ"א‬: Nowadays ppl don’t use yayin for AZ, not assur
b’hanaa.
B/c if issur hanaa, then can’t have heter of nishtane [b/c if efer would be assur (min
hanikbarim), then can’t talk about nishtane being mutar]. But since ‫ רמ"א‬says no issur
hanaa, so that’s why ppl are somech to be meikil and buy these whiskeys w/out
hashgacha b/c worst case have stam yeinam that was nishtane, issur dirabanan we rely on
issur shenishtane.
B. Sefer Yein Malchus- writes that many achronim are choleik on this, and think should
be noheig issur.
Question is why?
C. ‫ שו"ת‬Even Yikara:- Could be that no din shinui when it changes to something man-
made like whiskey. Maybe nishtane is only from one davar tivi to another.
62
- Also, wouldn’t seem to shtim w/ R’ Shachter’s idea of needing to have a totally

different taste. Wine and Whiskey lichora taste very similar.
#25 ‫שיעור‬-Pas Akum

A. Mishna AZ 35B- List of non-Jewish products that are assur. Pas akum is on the list.
1. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 17:9- Chazal assured certain things so that we shouldn’t hang out with
non-Jews and end up making shidduchim with them. Pas akum is one of those gzeiros.
B. Gm AZ R’ Kahana: Pas didn’t get an official heter in bd, which implies that there
was possibility of a heter.
1. ‫ 'תוס‬Michlal- Apparently the issur hadn’t spread everywhere, why? Could be
its b/c it’s a gzeira she’ein hatzibbur yachol laamod bo. Im kein, there is a smach to those
who want to be meikil and not follow this gzeira. Brings other rayas that this is true,
including Yerushalmi that says they were matir it. And says that even if nizhar, don’t
have to be careful not to eat with someone who isn’t nizhar b/c no issur pas akum in a
taaroves.
II. What’s the character of the gzeira? Mach ‫ 'רמ‬and ‫ר"ן‬

A. Gm AZ 38B- Way to make sure bread isn’t pas akum: If Jew either bakes the bread,
makes the fire, or stoaks the coals. Jew must be involved.
1. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 17:13- Even if Jew just throws in one stick into the fire, all of the pas is
mutar b/c just need heker that their pas is assur.
(a) ‫ רא"ש‬AZ 2:33- thinks the lashon of the gm doesn’t imply such a small
action, ela a real activity. But hanach l’Yisrael sheyihu shogigim.
2. ‫ ר"ן‬AZ 13B- As long as the dough belongs to the goy and he prepares it, that’s
pas akum no matter what. The heterim are to allow Jewish bread to remain pas yisrael
and not have problem of bishul akum.
B. Shoresh Machlokes ‫ 'רמ‬and ‫ר"ן‬:

1. ‫'רמ‬- As long as Jew is involved in the baking, Pas Yisrael, even if goy did all of
the preparations. Bishul akum is only by actual bishul.
2. ‫ר"ן‬- Jew has to make the dough, and has to be involved in the baking to avoid
bishul akum.
III. Halacha Limaaseh/ Pas Haba B’Kisnin

A. ‫ שו"ע‬YD 112:9- Quotes ‫'רמ‬: Jew has any involvement, even throwing in one stick, no
issur of pas akum.
B. 112:6 ‫רמ"א‬- Kichlach and minei mesika (pas haba b’kisnin) are bichlal pas.
1. 18 ‫ש"ך‬- has to have toar lechem/loaf. Also, only assur if blilasan ava, thick
batter. When make cakes and cookies, many have thin batter. Only gozer on ava.
2. Avnei Nezer 94:3- 429:2 ‫ שו"ע‬Dinei Challah: Chayav challah on blila raka!?
Why should the din be any different for pas akuk?
63
 R’ Simon: Have to say the ‫ ש"ך‬was mechaleik: Not everything that has din
lechem is nichlal in the gzeira. Needs to be more chashuv. Not worried about eating
chococate chip cookies with them.
IV. Pas Palter- Discussion of heter in general for the entire issur
 Gm discusses difference between pas palter and shel baal habatim.
- Palter: commercial baking. A Bakery.
- Baal Habayis: guy who bakes in his own house, for himself.
A. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 17:12- Some places are meikil to allow ppl to buy from non-Jewish baker, but
that’s only when there is no Jewish bakery available. No heter for pas baal habayis b/c
serious chashash chasnus.
B. Yerushalmi AZ 15B- When there isn’t pas yisrael, removed the issur of pas palter.
C. Mordechai AZ 830- From Yerushalmi, can only be matir when there’s no Jewish
baker. But says that since the issur was never nispasheit, like you see from gm AZ
(would have been matir but then would be Beis Din Sharye), thinks don’t need beis din to
be matir.
D. Beis Yosef 112:2- From ‫רשב"א‬: Palter vs Baal HaBayis: If he makes it to eat himself
and then gives you some, that’s baal habayis, even if he’s a baker. And if he makes it to
sell, considered palter, even if he makes it in his house.
E. 112:2 ‫שו"ע‬
1. ‫מחבר‬: quotes ‫'רמ‬. Only mutar when no Jewish baker.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: quotes Mordechai, even when there is Jewish baker, can eat pas palter.
*Might say question of buying from non-Jewish companies is taluy on this machlokes.
**R’ Simon (Beis Yitzchak 32) quotes R’ Genack b’shem R’ Moshe Feinstein: By
companies, since the consumer and producer never meet, it’s not bichlal pas palter at all
and is mutar ligamrei (lichora, even acc to the ‫)'רמ‬.
V. Other halachos related to this din

A. Is Pas Palter/Bh”b dependent on seller or baker? Machlokes ‫רשב"א‬/Ra’a:
1. ‫ רשב"א‬Thb- Always go according to who made it.
2. Raa-Taluy on the interaction. And by bh”b more kiruv daas than by palter.
B. 112:7 ‫שו"ע‬- Pas bh”b is assura l’olam, and shel palter is mutar l’olam. Like the
‫רשב"א‬.
C. 112:5- If you like a certain type of bread, and only the goy makes that type of bread,
considered like pas yisrael is eino matzui. (from the ‫)רשב"א‬.
D. 112:13- one person is nizhar and the other person is not, and on the table there are
both types of bread, the bh”b can take from the pas palter which is better [mishum kavod
of the guest].
1. Beis Meir asks: Minhag is like a neder. So how can you violate your neder?
(a) Chelkas Binyamin: When he was mikabel this minhag, it was w/ this
situation in mind. (person who fasts behab, doesn’t need hataras nedarim to eat at a bris,
nichlal in minhag)
(b) R’ Simon based on Dagul Merivava- minhag tov is mishum neder,
but not really a neder, only midirabanan, and only need hataras nedarim if don’t want to
64
keep this chumra at all any more. So lichora, same idea here, not really a neder in the
first place, so question doesn’t doesn’t start.
E. ‫ טור‬Hilchos Rosh Hashana 603- Yerushalmi: there’s a minhag to eat chullin b’tahara,
and one amora said to the other, if you can do it all year, great. But at least do it by
aseres yimei teshuva. Based on this Yerushalmi, have minag from Raavya to be makpid
on pas palter during 10 yimei teshuva.
F. ‫ רמ"א‬Hilchos Shabbos 242:1- minhag to make dough and be mafrish challah on erev
shabbos.
1. Magen Avraham- kavod shabbos to have pas yisrael on shabbos.
2. Eliyahu Raba: nice minhag, but doesn’t mean that can’t eat pas palter on
shabbos.
#26 ‫שיעור‬- Bishul Akum

A. Mishna AZ 35B- Non-Jewish items that are assur, shlakos is on that list.
1. ‫רש"י‬- b/c of chasnus. Another ‫ רש"י‬later mentions b/c may come to give you
something not kosher.
2. ‫ 'רמ‬MA 17:9- List of items that assur mishum chasnus, even if no issue of the
foods being non-kosher, b/c of chasnus.
B. Gm AZ 37B- tries to find a pasuk for this din, in end says no, it’s a dirabanan and
psukim are just asmachtas.
1. ‫ 'תוס‬V’haShlakos- if gm has HA that this is issur doraysa, must have been a
gzeira that was from very long time ago, way before pas akum.
II. What foods does this apply to?

A. Gm 38A- two possibilities:
1. If it can be eaten raw, not bichlal this gzeira.
2. If not ole al shulchan melachim l’lafes bo es hapas, not bichlal the gzeira.
(a) Meant literally: Check what they do in the White House.
i. R’ Shimon Schwab from ‫ חזו"א‬:‫ חזו"א‬was machmir on certain
item and when R’ Schwab asked that it wasn’t ole al
shulchan melachim, ‫ חזו"א‬responded: “A king would eat it for
breakfast”.
(b) Melitza: Only applies to things that are chashuv (not potato chips).
i. ‫'רמ‬- anything that isn’t ole al shulchan melachim, wouldn’t invite
someone over to eat, so no chashash chasnus by those items.
Sounds like ‫ 'רמ‬thinks it’s a melitza.
- Gm gives ‫ נ"מ‬btwn the two opinions: cases that are small fish, which are not eaten raw,
but not ole on shulchan melachim.
65
B. ‫ 'תוס‬Ika- ‫ר"ת‬: Makes diyuk from the cases that are brought, and in general, by
dirabanans can be holech achar hameikil, so need both requirements to have problem of
bishul akum.
C. What about all of our canned vegetables?

1. Some say that wouldn’t serve vegetables from can at a state dinner.
[2. Maybe have the same kula that we had by the companies.]
3. Ra’a- If person just cooks in his factory, ppl don’t eat there, etc. not a problem
b/c not shayach to have akruvei dayta in this situation.
III. What’s necessary to avoid the issur altogether?

A. Gm 38A- Anything cooked by a Jew to maachal ben drosay (1/3 [‫)]רשב"א‬, won’t be
problem of bishul akum if goy finishes it off.
B. What if the goy starts through 1/3 and then Jew takes over, does it help now or is it
also too late to save it? Machlokes Rishonim:
1. ‫ רשב"א‬Bayis HaKatzar 93A: Works both ways. If Jew did it, goy can’t mess
it up a/more, and if goy did it till mb”d, now Jew can’t be misakein it. (Same svara by
bishul achar bishul b’shabbos).
2. ‫ רא"ש‬AZ 2:32- Only use mb”d lihakeil not lihachmir. Once Jew did it, goy
can’t mess it up. Jew can still be misakein by cooking it after it’s already reached mb’d
by the goy.
C. 113:9 ‫שו"ע‬-
1. ‫מחבר‬: If goy cooked it to mb”d, shouldn’t eat it unless there’s hefsed meruba or
erev shabbos.
2. ‫רמ"א‬: Yesh matirim b’chol inyan.
D. How involved does the Jew have to be?

1. 113:6- ‫מחבר‬: Jew must be involved in the bishul process, even if goy puts it on
fire, and now Jew flips it or mixes the kdeira, mutar.
2. 113:7-
(a) ‫מחבר‬: Shgiras haTanur is not enough by bishul akum, only by pas
akum. Jew has to place the food on the stove/oven, etc. Can’t just turn on the fire.
(b) ‫רמ"א‬: Lighting the fire or turning the coals is enough, just like by pas
akum. V’chein nohagim. And even if the goy just lights the fire from fire of a Jew ok as
well. *Have to understand the chiluk btwn pas akum and bishul akum.
IV. Live-in help who are not Jewish

A. 38 '‫תוס‬A Ela- quotes R’ Avraham BR’ David (‫)ראב"ד‬: as long as cooking in house
of the Jew, not worried about chasnus at all. Mutar ligamrei in Jew’s house.
‫ ר"ת‬did not like this. No chiluk about where the food is cooked.
B. 1:68 ‫רשב"א שו"ת‬- There are those who say shfachos are not bichlal bishul akum b/c
chashash chasnus is only by someone who does it out of kindness of their heart, but if
66
they are hired to do so, not an issue of kiruv daas. ‫ רשב"א‬doesn’t accept such a svara and
says we still assur what they cook even bidieved.
C. Issur V’Heter 43:13- No special heter for shifcha, just that woman of the house is
usually home as well and she will light the fire.
D. ‫ מחבר‬-113:4 ‫שו"ע‬: there are those who are meikil by our shfachos, and those who
assur even bidieved. (But doesn’t give us the svara). ‫רמ"א‬- bidieved can rely on the
matirim. And can even rely on them lichatchila b/c in beis yisrael most probably
someone did something to the food as well.
‫ מחבר‬-7 ‫ ש"ך‬is talking about when they used to own a goy and were chayav for
her shvisa, so wasn’t bichlal goy anymore. But doesn’t apply to us anymore at all. But
then quotes those who the ‫ רשב"א‬rejected, and if that’s what the mechber meant, then the
‫ רמ"א‬is referring to that and could be somech even bizmaneinu.
**Even though pashtus in ‫ רמ"א‬seems to be that can be meikil bidieved, R’ Simon said
that we generally are more machmir.
V. Pask of 113:7 ‫מחבר‬, implication for Sfardim

*Psak of ‫ מחבר‬leaves problem for sfardim at any place where there is mass production of
food (wedding, cafeteria, restaurant, etc.). If there is Ashkenazi hashgacha, relying on
‫ רמ"א‬that only need to turn on the fire.
A. ‫ שו"ת‬Chavas Daas 5:54-
1. Case of sfardi at Wedding: Sfeik sfeika lihakeil: Machlokes ‫רמ"א‬/‫מחבר‬
whether lighting the fire is enough. And even if hold like ‫מחבר‬, machlokes whether can
rely on shitos that person who works for you has no problem of kiruv daas.
2. Maid who cooks the food: Thinks can be mitzareif the ‫ ראב"ד‬together with the
other deia in the ‫ רשב"א‬to say that don’t have to throw out the food bidieved.
B. R’ Abadie- along the same lines, sfeik sfeika by case of sfardi in restaurant.
**R’ Simon didn’t think it was so pashut to rely on this on a regular basis.
VI. If the goy did cook, do you have to be machshir the keilim afterwards?
A. ‫רשב"א‬- yes. Bishul akum is cheftza shel issur, this is maachalos assuros.
B. Ra’a- no. There won’t be any kiruv daas by taam. Not bichlal gzeira at all.
C. 113:16 ‫שו"ע‬- Brings both deios. Kli cheres: Do hagala 3 times b/c ein ikaro min
haTorah.  Generally, we pasken lichumra that should be machshir the keilim.
This is where by porcelain dishwashers to run it 3x after 24hrs. Based on Yerushalmi
in Trumos (Baal ha’Itur). This is issur dirabanan and nt”l is also only an issur dirabanan.
However, here the issur has no ikar min HaTorah, that’s why the connection is not so
clear, and is disputed amongst the poskim.
VII. Lilafeis bo es haPas

A. Aruch HaShulchan- ‫ל"ד‬, just talking about chashivus.
B. Pri Chadash: Also talks about bishul akum by coffee, says not used lilafeis bo es
hapas, but then says maybe don’t need lilafes bo es hapas (see inside).
67
VIII. Bishul Akum by Microwaves

A. 113:13- ‫רמ"א‬: only assured bishul shel eish. This is why some think can be meikil by
microwaves. R’ Abadie thought to be machmir, not so simple b/c derech bishul b’kach.
Certainly shouldn’t have goyishe maid b’kvius be cooking for you in the microwave.
However, this is definitely a tzad lihakeil, especially bidieved.

Rav Baruch Simon, Shlita Hilchos Basar B'Chalav, Winter/Spring 5768

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Rav Baruch Simon, Shlita Hilchos Basar B'Chalav, Winter/Spring 5768

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

I. How many issurim are we talking about?

B. Malkus for achila and Bishul, no malkus for hanaa:

C. Malkus for all three:

III. Issur bb”ch by dvarim assurim: Bishul, Hana’a:

#2 ‫שיעור‬- Bb”ch Doraysa/Dirabanan

I. What is considered Basar and Chalav l’inyan issur dorasya of bb”ch?

C. Those who hold oaf can make bb”ch midoraysa:

II. What is assur when we assur something as bb”ch dirabanan?

III. Status of bb”ch dirabanan that involves beheima temeia?

D. Imrei Baruch- wants to answer for the Pleisi.

#3- 2.11.08/ 6 Adar I 5768

I. Sources for Maris Ayin

B. Shut 257 ‫רשב"א‬-

III. “Chalav” Shkeidim (almond milk)

IV. What we do Limaaseh by Chalav Isha and its extensions:

V. When do chazal assur something b/c of Maris Ayin?

VI. Maris Ayin by Shaatnez, Margarine, Non-Dairy Creamer

2.13.08 -#4 ‫שיעור‬

I. Chumra #1- stoking coals under non-Jew’s pot

B. Stiros in Pri Megadim

D. Pleisi 87:13 (above) - even cooking together again would be assur.

 Maadanei Asher- This machlokes depends on question of whether issur bb”ch is an

IV. Chumra #3- shampoo made w/ bb”ch

V. Chumra #4- Using kdeiros stored in beis haChoref

13 /2.18.08 -#5 ‫ שיעור‬Adar I 5768

I. Different kinds of Bishul and ‫ נ"מ‬lihalacha

II. Three pshatim in ‫’רש"י‬s Ein Derech Bishul B’Kach

III. Alternative forms of Bishul by Shabbos and Bb”ch

IV. What about Bishul Akum?

B. Shulchan Aruch YD 113:13- Don’t say meliach k’roseiach, no problem of meushan

14 /2.20.08 -#6 ‫ שיעור‬Adar I (Purim Katan)

Waiting between eating this beitza and milk?

Rav Soloveitchik- also gives explanation to this minhag (see inside).

Gm Chullin 114A- mivashel b’mei chalav is patur.

#7 ‫שיעור‬- Chalav B’ohr haKeiva v’Davar HaMaamid (Intro to Chalav Akum)

C. Shulchan Aruch 87:9-

II. Chalav Shechuta

B. Is milk found in keiva chalav shechuta?

III. Geder of Davar HaMaamid (Doraysa or Dirabanan?)

(b) Machtzis haShekel 9- ‫ טור‬holds that something that’s only assur

21 /2.27.08 -#8 ‫ שיעור‬Adar I 5768

I. Source of Issur, shitos haRishonim

III. Psak ha’Achronim

#8.5 ‫ שיעור‬- Od B’inyan Davar haMaamid

**2 Basic Mehalchim:

I. The din in Shulchan Aruch isn’t correct (Halacha, v’lo limaaseh):

Maskana acc to ‫רע"א‬:

III. Other options, assuming din in Shulchan Aruch is correct:

#9 ‫שיעור‬- Issur Haalas Basar Im Chalav

I. Source of the Issur

II. What harchakos have to be made?

(b) As long as they know eachother, can’t eat near eachother.

3. Badei HaShulchan 88 Biurim Dh Al Shulchan- thinks cup of milk is assur.

C. Does this issur apply to shaar issurim?

III. Does heker work for person alone?

B. What if have a shomer?

#10 ‫שיעור‬- Waiting between Basar and Chalav: Part I

1) ‫ נ"מ‬btwn ‫ רש"י‬and ‫?'רמ‬

2) What does it mean bein seuda l’seuda?

Issue #1- ‫ רש"י‬vs ‫'רמ‬

Different shitos of how long you have to wait:

#2- 105 '‫תוס‬A dh Seudasa Achrisa