Rav Baruch Simon, Shlita

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

שיעור #1

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/רמ' how 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.

-- רמ'Chametz 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. רמ' MA 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 שיעור b’eichus.

C. Malkus for all three:

1.רמב"ן (Megillas 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"ן who 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 themk’derech achilaso (Gm Pesachim 24B), except for bb”ch and kilei hakerem by which Torah doesn’t say

lashon achila. So lack of lashon achila leads to malkus even when eat shelo kiderech achilaso.

B.רמ'Sefer haMitzvos 186/187- 2Sep 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). רמ' explains 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.

רמ' MA 9:6-Paskens like first deia:No malkus on achila, but are loke al bishulo.

B.Nekuda Niflaa-רמ'Peirush 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’ Elchananexplainsרמ'based 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, byKodshim, 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 רמ' in sefer hamitzvos says fakert].

C. נ"מfrom this discussion of Ein Issur Chal Al Issur (Issur didn’t happen or just no onesh):

1. Gm Yevamos 32B- Din in onshin. נ"מ: Ein kovrin tzaddik eitzel rasha. ReuvenHaKohen 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 Megadimused this gm as raya that ein issur chal al issur is only by onshin, but the aveira itself is chal. Asks what’s the רמ' going to do with this gm? See that there taka is a second issur, just a din in onshin (רמ' wanted 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.רמ' Tumas 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. רמ' MA 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'.

שיעור #2- Bb”ch Doraysa/Dirabanan

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

A. Mishna Chullin 113A- BothMeat 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. רמ' MA 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. רמ' Hilchos Mamrim2:9- 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. תוס' 104B- 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. רמ' MA 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. טור 87:1- 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 likeרמ').

1.Bach 87:1-argues withטור: רמ'is saying that bishul and hanaa are mutar midoraysa, but assur midirabanan. רמ'usually 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 רמ' and טור k’pshutam)

1. רע"א 3- 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 טור is problematic b/c limai נ"מ that it’s bb”ch dirabanan?The bishul and hanaa are mutar ligamrei and the achila is assur midoraysa anyways?

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"מ about 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. Needbishul 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"ד bishul.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 basarin 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.

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"נ here, 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 רשב"א 257-

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"נ by 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 שיעור bitul.

C. Beis Yosef 87:4- agrees with רשב"א, no need for שיעור bitul (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 (רמ') and 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 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. טור 66:9-10: 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’sextension 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 anissur dirabanan on shabbos.