|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From And The
Word of G-d From (Isaiah 2:3) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rabbi Yehudah Deri's Shiurim on Yorah Deah Shiur 6b - "Mimead - Part II" Translated and transcribed by: Gemora: Chulin
116a Mishnah: If one made cheese with
the rennet (the skin of the stomach) of a validly slaughtered animal and
there is a sufficient amount to impart a taste (to the cheese), it is
forbidden.
The Mishnah
deals with making cheese by adding milk to the skin of the stomach of an
animal. This process produces a curdling effect on the milk. In the Talmudic
times this was done by placing the milk inside the stomach of the animal.
Today, it is done by adding a minute concentration of the stomach to the milk.
The laws, however, remains the same. The Mishnah
states that the cheese is forbidden if there is a taste (ta'am)
of the meat in it. If the meat is less than one part against sixty parts of
milk, we rule that there is no meat taste in the milk. Therefore, the meat
will be nullified (botel) and the cheese permitted.
If, on the other hand, there is a greater proportion of meat in the milk, we
rule that there will be a taste of meat in the cheese ,
and consequently, the cheese will forbidden. It is necessary to reconcile this
Mishnah with the discussion (sugiah) in Avodah
Zarah. The Mishnah
(Avodah Zarah 29) states:
Rabbi Yishmael asks Rabbi Yehoshua
why the cheese of gentiles is prohibited? The Gemora answers (Avodah Zarah 35), Shmuel
says that it is forbidden because they make it with the rennet of a
non-kosher animal. The Gemora
in Hullin also comes to the same conclusion:
"The halachah is that we do not make cheese
with the rennet of non-kosher animals. Apparently, both the Mishnah in Avoda Zora and the statement of Shmuel
in the Gemora (Avodah Zarah 35) rule that cheese made from the rennet of a
non-kosher animal is prohibited whatever the quantity of rennet, even a
minute amount (mashahu). This means that the meat
will not be nullified (botel) even if it is only a
thousand part or less than the quantity of milk. The
prohibition which rules that even a minute amount of rennet will forbid any
quantity of cheese, irrespective of taste, is called the prohibition of ma’amid
(literally standing). Ma’amid is the name of the process
whereby one substance gives form or solidity to a liquid. We must clarify two points.
Firstly, the nature of the prohibition of ma’amid. Secondly, the
difference between the case brought in Avoda Zora where the cheese is
prohibited even where there is only a minute quantity, and the Mishna in Chulin, where the
cheese is prohibited only when there is enough rennet to give the taste of
meat. Clarifications: 1. Does the din of ma’amid (that the issur
is not botel
even in a thousand) only apply when rennet comes from a non-kosher animal or
when some other forbidden substance is used, or does it apply even to rennet
of a kosher animal? 2. Is the din of ma’amid a Torah or
Rabbinical prohibition? 3. When cheese is produced from a
combination of rennet and another permitted substance such as herbs, we apply
the following principle: Where two causal factors exist simultaneously, one
permitted (mutar) and the other prohibited (osser), the result of the
combination of those causative factors, is permitted. This rule is described
succinctly "ze v-ze gorem,
mutttar". We will explain the
parameters of this din
as it applies to ma'amid.
We will investigate these
questions according to a fundamental chakira (two sided analysis). In
general, there are two factors which prevent a prohibited substance (issur) being nullified (botel) in a permitted substance (heter).
1. The "actual presence of
the issur
(b’ayn). In ma’amid, do we compare
the curdling effect of the rennet, to the case of the actual presence of the issur b’ayn,
or to the presence of taste? In either case, the issur of ma’amid
would exist in any quantity, but there are two ways of explaining it. 1. Do we say that rennet cannot
be botel
since it makes the cheese solid, i.e. that it "stands up" or forms
the cheese and is considered as if it is b’ayn (actually present
in the cheese). 2. Or do we say that a The first question: 1. The Ran in Chulin
brings the Ri MiGash who
raises the following difficulty (kashe): Why did Shmuel
in Avodah Zora have to
say the the cheese of non-Jews was forbidden
because they made it with the rennet of a nevaleh? Even if the
animal was kosher it would be osser because of the prohibition of meat
and cheese (boser b’halev).
He raises a further difficulty (kashe): Why is it osser
in a mashehu?
Let us just see if it has taste! The Ri MiGash answers that the din of mamid (that the issur
is not botel
even in a thousand) applies only when rennet of nevelah or other
forbidden substance is used. When milk is curdled with rennet of a kosher
animal, the din is
the same as any other instance of boser b’holev (it will be osser if there is a ta'am). This explanation of the Ri miGash is held by the Rambam, the Rashbah and the Shulchan Orech. It also solves
the problem of reconciling the two Gemoros. Avodah Zora is concerned with nevalah
and therefore prohibits in a mashahu. Chullin
is concerned with a kosher animal and therefore the cheese is prohibited only
if there is the taste of meat (one in sixty). According to this view, the
prohibition of Mamid
is because it is as if b’ayn. 2. There are two other views
which are opposed to this explanation. Each at the opposite ends of the
spectrum. According to the Rav Mordechai Ashkenazi,
the prohibition of Mamid
applies equally to rennet from a kosher animal, a nevalah
or any other forbidden substances (sha'ar isurrim).
The Rav Ashkenazi explains the Mishnah in Chulin as referring to a case of "ze v'ze gorem". In other words the rennet was
assisted by another permitted substance when it produced the cheese. This,
then, is why there is no prohibition of Mamid for it would only
be prohibited by ta'am,
if there was the taste of the meat. But if the cheese was made from rennet
alone then surely there would be an prohibition of Mamid
and would osser
in a mashahu.
3. The Rashal,
on the contrary, holds that even Nevelah only causes the
cheese to be prohibited if there is the taste of rennet (one in sixty). He
rejects the din of Mamid
and holds that the prohibition depends on the ta'am both in sha'ar issurrim
and in boser b’halev.
If it is not tasted in the cheese it does not prohibit. He explains the Gemora in Avodah Zora as giving the rule that cheese of gentiles are
prohibited as a general statement of the rule but without specifying the
quantity required to make such a prohibition. The Gemora
in Chulin explains that the quantity is sixty i.e. that
is in the amount that gives ta’am. The second question: Most Halachic
Authorities (Posekim) hold that the prohibition of
Mamid
is Rabbinical. Only the Mogen Avraham in the name
of the Tor (Or Chaim Simon 602:9) holds that it is
from the Torah. This will make halachic differences (nafka minas).In doubtful cases (sofek) we will be lenient (makil) if the law is Rabbinical, but strict if the source of the law is from the
Torah. There will be another halachic difference relating to the following question:
Is it permissible to add more cheese to cancel (mevatel) the taste of the meat? The Rambam permits the adding of more of the permitted
substance into a mixture of heter
and issur in order to increase the heter
to the amount required to mvatel
the Rabbinical
issur.
This can be done even initially (l'chatchilah). Accordingly, in the case of
kosher rennet, in a case where the amount of milk was less than sixty, and
the cheese would therefore be prohibited, if the din of ma’amid is Rabbinical,
the Rambam would permit the addition of more milk,
to bring the proportion of milk to rennet to more than sixty to one, in order
to mevatel
the issur and permit the cheese. Since the Torah prohibits bose b’halev
only when cooked together, ma’amid, in a case where
it would apply to boser b’halev
could by definition only be Rabbinical as it is not a form of cooking. Where
the din of Mamid
applies, it must be an Rabbinical prohibition.
However, when the issur is based on the presence of
other isurrim such as nevaleh, then it is
possible that the issur
of ma’amid
is from the Torah and the din
would be strict in the case of a sofek. The third question: All the Posekim hold the law of
"z' v'ze
gorem mutar",
(which we learn from Pasachim) applies when neither
the prohibited substance nor the permitted substance is sufficient in itself
to effect the change, for instance in the case of curdling milk to make
cheese. However, when both substances are present in such quantity that each
in itself could effect the change, for instance where there is enough rennet
and enough herbs, then only the Rama holds that the din still applies and that the
cheese is permitted. This din of
the Rama is against the usual din of "ze v-ze gorem muttar"
and both the Taz and the Shach
disagree strongly with the Rama. The Rama states that he bases his din on the Mordechai
but his understanding of the Mordechai is also
challenged by the Taz and the Shach.
It is possible that the Rama would be makil even if there was
sufficient amount of the forbidden rennet and an insufficient amount of the
other permitted agent present in the cheese. Since the Shulchan
Oruch does not state the law as being like the
Rama, we may infer that the view of the Shulchan Orech in the question of ze v-ze gorem is like the Taz
and the Shach. So far as the
question of whether the prohibition of ma’amid is from the
Torah or Rabbinical, in the case of the rennet of nevela and sha’ar issurim,
the M’chaber holds that the prohibition Rabbinical
since the Shulchan Orech
follows the view of the Ri MiGash,
and according to this view, the issur of Mamid is a issur b’eyn. Source Material
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Diaspora
Yeshiva
|
You will need Adobe Reader on your computer to read
this file.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
