Previous daf

1)

(a) We might have thought that one may cook lamb and beef in milk - because the Torah only mentions the meat of a kid-goat in this connection.

(b) Our Mishnah neverthess permits cooking in milk - the meat of fish and locusts.

(c) Our Mishnah forbids placing meat on the same table as cheese (even though one is allowed to eat meat after cheese [according to the law of the Gemara]) - in case one comes to eat them together (which in turn, is prohibited in case the cold cheese touches the hot meat and absorbs some of its taste, something which Asur min ha'Torah).

(d) This does not apply to the 'meat of fish and locusts either. The third distinction that our Tana draws between animal meat and them is - that someone who declares that he will not derive benefit from meat, remains permitted to eat fish and locusts.

(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah which cites Basar Dagim and Chagavim as exceptions to the Isur of cooking Basar ve'Chalav, but not birds - that cooking fowl in milk is Asur mi'd'Oraysa.

(b) This seems to establish the Mishnah not like Rebbi Akiva, who says - that cooking Chayah and Of in milk is not mi'd'Oraysa.

(c) The Rabbanan in the Mishnah in Nedarim rule that someone who declares that he will not derive benefit from Yerek (vegetables) is permitted to benefit from pumpkin, and they prove it from the fact if Reuven would ask Shimon to purchase Yerek, he would come back empty-handed based on the fact that he all he found was pumpkins (a proof that pumpkins are not called Yerek).

(d) Rebbi Akiva counter that - by asking why he will not explain that he did not buy Yerek because all he found was Kitnis (legumes), unless it is because pumpkins are a kind of Yerek, whereas legumes are not

(a) The criterion that determines the Din of Nedarim according to both opinions is - how refer to the object.

(b) Based on his S'vara in the Mishnah in Nedarim, Rebbi Akiva will hold that if someone declares that he will not eat meat - fowl is included.

(c) The author of the Seifa of our Mishnah ('ha'Noder min ha'Basar ... ') - is therefore Rebbi Akiva ...

(d) ... prompting us to ask 'Reisha Rabbanan ve'Seifa Rebbi Akiva'?

(a) Rav Yosef establishes the entire Mishnah like Rebbi - who, in connection fowl, holds like the Rabbanan regarding the Isur of Basar be'Chalav, and like Rebbi Akiva regarding the Isur of Nedarim.

(b) According to Rav Ashi on the other hand, the entire Mishnah goes like Rebbi Akiva. Interpreting 'Kol ha'Basar *Asur* Levashel be'Chalav', as incorporating Isur de'Rabbanan as well d'Oraysa, he therefore amends 'Ha Of Asur mi'd'Oraysa', to 'Ha'Of, Asur' (meaning mi'de'Rabbanan), whereas Basar Dagim and Chagavim is not even Asur mi'de'Rabbanan either.

5)

(a) Rav Yosef extrapolates from our Mishnah 've'Asur Laha'alos im ha'Gevinah al ha'Shulchan' that eating Basar Of be'Chalav must be an Isur d'Oraysa - because if it was only de'Rabbanan, they would not have decreed bringing on to the table, on account of eating (due to the principle 'Gezeirah li'Gezeirah Lo Gazrinan').

(b) And he tries to prove this from the Mishnah in Chalah 'Chalas Chutz la'Aretz Ne'echeles im ha'Zar al ha'Shulchan' - from which we can learn that, bearing in mind that Chalas Chutz la'Aretz is only de'Rabbanan, the Rabbanan do not issue a Gezeirah li'Gezeirah.

(c) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's proof - on the grounds that in the case in the Mishnah in Chalah, there is no d'Oraysa on the horizon, which could prompt a decree. The proof would have been sound had the Tana added 'Chalas Chutz la'Aretz ba'Aretz ... ' - where the Rabbanan did not decree, even though it would have been possible to decree by Chalah d'Rabbanan on account of Chalas Eretz Yisrael, which is d'Oraysa.

(d) That being the case, the Rabbanan would be justified in decreeing in our Mishnah, even assuming that Basar Of be'Chalav is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (like Rebbi Akiva), on account of Basar Beheimah with cheese (which is d'Oraysa).

(a) The problem ...

1. ... Rav Sheishes has with this, despite the fact that Basar Beheimah cooked together with cheese is d'Oraysa is - that seeing as both the meat and the cheese are cold, there is no Isur d'Oraysa anyway?
2. ... with Abaye's initial answer establishing the decree that they might serve the meat still hot on a dish is - that seeing as a 'dish' (Ilfas) is a K'li Sheini, it remains an Isur de'Rabbanan.

(b) We resolve the problem - by amending the decree to the chance that one might bring the meat still hot on to the table in an Ilfas Rishon (the K'li in which the meat was cooked).

(a) The Isur of serving Basar Of together with cheese as well as eating them together is the opinion of Beis Hillel in the next Mishnah. Beis Shamai rule there - 'ha'Of Olah im ha'Gevinah al ha'Shulchan, ve'Eino Ne'echal'.

(b) Rebbi Yossi adds -'Zu mi'Kulei Beis Shamai u'mi'Chumrei Beis Hillel'.

(c) The Tana finally - confines the decree to the table at which one eats, permitting bringing Basar Of together with cheese on to the serving table without any problem.

(a) Initially, we explain that Rebbi Yossi comes to add to the Tana Kama - that not only do Beis Shamai disagree with Beis Hillel with regard to bringing Basar Of with cheese to the table, but they even permit eating them together too.

(b) We refute this however, on the basis of a Beraisa, where Rebbi Yossi himself lists six Machlokos between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel, and where he says ...

1. ... that - they are the only cases in Shas where Beis Shamai goes le'Kula, and Beis Hillel, le'Chumra.
2. ... our case 'Basar Of be'Chalav' - that Beis Shamai argues with Beis Hillel as regards serving Basar Of together with cheese, but not as regards eating them together (which tallies with the Tana Kama).

(a) We therefore conclude that Rebbi cites Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah - to teach us that the Tana Kama is in fact, Rebbi Yossi.

(b) Rebbi finds it necessary to do this - in order to fulfill the principle 'Kol ha'Omer Davar be'Shem Omro, Meivi Ge'ulah le'Olam' (Mishnah, Pirkei Avos).

(c) And we learn this from the Pasuk "Va'tomer Esther la'Melech be'Shem Mordechai" - where Esther informed Achashverosh of the plot on his life, and this later caused the salvation at the hand of Mordechai.

(a) Agra the father-in-law of Rebbi Aba permitted eating fowl after cheese - be'Hefkeirus (without any preparation), as that was what he heard from his Rebbes Note, meat after hard cheese is a Chumra that was enacted only later.

(b) He subsequently explained it to mean - that neither washing one's hands nor rinsing out one's mouth is required.

(c) When Rav Ashi served Rav Yitzchak b'rei de'Rav Mesharshaya first cheese, and then meat - he ate first the one, then the other, without washing his hands.

(d) When they queried him from Agra the father-in-law of Rebbi Aba, who permitted this regarding fowl and cheese, but not regarding the equivalent case by animal meat and cheese, he justified what he did - by restricting the obligation to wash one's hands, to nighttime, when one cannot inspect one's hands, but in the daytime, when one can see that one's hands are clean, it is not necessary.