today's shiur, this legal holiday shiur, is once again sponsored ולזכר נשמת Esther bat Yosef Chaim and Rabbi Shlomo Zalman ben Yehudit, David Yehuda, Shlomo Zalman ben Yehuda. And also today's shiur is also being sponsored for רפואה שלימה for Esther bat Margaliyot Sarah. Margalit? Sarah. Margaliyot Sarah. The Okay, today's topic is going to be fish and meat, and the various הלכות that are relevant to the eating of fish and meat. See, this הלכה is brought down in Shulchan Aruch in two different places. It's brought down in Yoreh De'ah in סימן קט״ז. It's also brought down in Orach Chaim in סימן קע״ג. The The

basis for this, there's a Gemara in Masechet Masechet Pesachim, where the Gemara discusses a fish and and meat that were cooked together. And the Gemara says that, we'll see later on exactly how they were cooked together, but they were cooked together, whatever the Gemara mentions, and they the Gemara says that one should not eat that fish together with כותח. כותח was a condiment that they used to make in those days that was had milk in it, whey in it. And the Gemara first says that you can't eat it because it's fleishigs, because you cooked it together and you baked it in the same oven, we'll see later on what the case is, is that the, so it became fleishigs, and therefore one may not go ahead and eat it eat it with with כותח. The Gemara then goes on and comments, the next מאי דאמר says that you can't even eat it with with salt, אפילו במילחא, the Gemara says. You can't even eat it with salt. And the reason for that is is because it's קשה לריח הפה ול לדבר אחר. So the Gemara says that it's because it's difficult for a for bad breath, and לריחא, לריחא the Gemara says, and also because, unfortunately, it can cause דבר אחר, which is a similar terminology that today many people they use when somebody they don't like talking about certain diseases, because they call it yene machla. Right? So, same thing. They want to say there's something else. And Rashi tells us that it's צרעת, that there's a problem of צרעת over here. And so, the Gemara tells us that one has to avoid eating these two things together, and so this is what's brought down in the Gemara. The question: how do we deal with this? The

Rambam does not bring this הלכה anywhere. The Rambam does not bring this איסור that one may not eat meat and fish together. And this follows the pattern of the Rambam, where we find that there are many different kinds of sakkanot that the Rambam does not bring at all, not mentioned anywhere in the Rambam. And he ignores it. So, why does the Rambam ignore this? The first thing that would come to mind is that, lemaaseh, maybe the Rambam looks at it that he ignores a lot of like the segulot in the Gemara in general, a lot of these kinds of סגולהדיקע things, things that are not על פי תורה or על פי טבע, the Rambam tends to ignore them for various reasons. And so it could be that this qualifies for one of those many, many things that the Rambam leaves out. We know there are many, many different things that are sakkanot, that are סגולהדיקע סכנות, and the Rambam just ignores them, and many people say because the Rambam is of the opinion that these things not necessarily exist and apply and whatever, and they were thoughts of people, but they're not למעשה קובע הלכה at all. That is one possibility, but over here it's a little bit more than that. It's a little bit more than that. The the

Magen Avraham already brings that there's a possibility, he says, is that בזמן הזה, we run into a different issue. There's an issue in halacha called נשתנו הטבעים, is that nature has changed, is that the nature of things have changed over years. And he says while it could very well be that it was a sakana back then, but now it's not a sakana. And then the Magen Avraham throws in another thought. The Magen Avraham throws in a thought that there's a שינוי הארצות, he says, not necessarily something that's danger in one kind of climate is going to be dangerous in a different climate. This is what the Rambam writes, what the Magen Avraham writes. Now, obviously the Magen Avraham was bothered with the kashya that everybody is bothered with, is that lemaaseh, we look around and we don't we we look around and we see people eating fish and meat together. You know, there's definitely goyim who do that, and there's probably even Jewish people who do this kind of stuff, and we don't see them coming down with צרעת. And that being the case, so we have a kashya. We have a kashya, why is that the case that these people are not coming down with צרעת? And the Gemara says that there's going to be a there's a there's a possibility or, you know, possibility, the poskim say even, just there's at least a possibility of chas veshalom, a person coming down with צרעת if they go ahead and eat meat and fish together. So, it would seem to be that that's what was bothering the Magen Avraham, and the Magen Avraham because of that, is led to say that maybe today things are different and therefore we don't have to be machmir on this halacha at all. And the other idea that the Magen Avraham puts forth is it's a change in climate. It's a change in climate, also a possibility. But once again, cuz he's bothered with the same kashya. Lichorah, we don't see it with our own eyes such a thing. So l'maaseh, this is a controversial thing in the poskim. It seems to be that they were certain there are certain קהילות among כלל ישראל, that I'm not going to mention 100% cuz I really did not check into this carefully, but me'idech, I remember hearing when I was much younger that

there are certain kinds of Jews that are not makpid on this halachah anymore. They're not makpid on the halachah of fish and meat together, and because of this Magen Avraham, because we don't see it b'eineinu. We don't see such a thing. L'maaseh, there's going to be two approaches to this. First of all, one approach is, or three approaches really to this, is that you know, there's the approach we don't agree with this נשתנו הטבעים. We don't generally in halachah we hesitate to apply that kind of halachah unless there are definitely certain things that have changed over the years, there's no question about it. There's certain things that the Gemara describes in the body of an animal that aren't like that anymore. They're just not like the way they are. And it's not like things that you could say we don't understand or whatever. The Gemara says there's certain things just they don't exist, really. And that being the case, so there are certain things that it seems to be that they're נשתנו הטבעים, however, however, at the same time, to go ahead and to apply that in a wide way and to say you know, things that we don't see that they don't apply is people hesitate to do that. And one of the rules that they invoke over here is since we're dealing with a situation of sakanah, we're dealing with a situation of danger, so just because you don't see it very often doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Right? There's no way to show that it doesn't happen, that's almost a thing that's almost impossible to do, to prove something doesn't happen. And m'meila, it could very well be that out there it's happening. So this is one argument that is is made. Another argument that's made, we're going to talk about this a little bit more later on, is that at this point it's almost like irrelevant whether it happens or not. L'maaseh, is once Chazal said that one should not do it because of a sakanah, is maybe it becomes a rule. That's the way it is, you know, Chazal said this is what we don't do, so we don't do it, and finished. You know, ai, the reason's not there anymore? So you know, maybe it gained some kind of level of halachic status that that's the way it is and this is the way halachah is, and you have to be machmir on it whether the מציאות is like that or not. My father-in-law argues a little bit differently. He argues argues that the, that, you know, maybe maybe what we call צרעת today is not what what they were talking about. He says that maybe צרעת means something else. צרעת could mean, as we know, I mean לאו דוקא they had צרעת even in the times of the Gemara, I mean we don't find שילוח מצורעים in the times of the Gemara either. So we're not talking about the צרעת דתורה, so that's definitely not what we're talking about. We're talking about some kind of skin disease that's called צרעת. He says this applies to a general swath of of skin diseases. So he argues there could be, you know, different things, you know, people have all kinds of things growing on their skins, rachmana litzlan. You could have various kinds of of cancer and different kinds of things that grow on people's skins, and other kinds of diseases that people don't have the foggiest notion exactly what triggers it. עד היום הזה we don't know. You know, we know that there are certain kinds of things, you know, you're in the sun a lot, you have a lot of sun exposure, etc., etc., but there are people who do, chas v'shalom, get these kinds of things, and other people who don't. So he says you can't go ahead and say it's very difficult to say that these things don't happen, because it's so arguing on the whole premise of the Magen Avraham in the first place that they don't happen, it could very well be that these things do happen. However, on that argument, it's not so simple to say like that for a different reason, because if you remember, the Gemara that we said in the beginning says that there's two problems. It's, first of all, one קשה is קשה לריחא, ולדבר אחר. The Gemara says is that not only is it a problem with a person coming down with with צרעת, but the Gemara says it's a problem with ריחא, which is that there's bad breath will come along with it, and that we don't find. So lemaaseh, just like so the argument that it's נשתנו הטבעים is is a much stronger argument, because lemaaseh that we could show. I mean lemaaseh we don't find that people who eat fish and meat together come down with with bad breath more frequently than people who who do. So lemaaseh, so the Say what? The So anyway, so that that this is lemaaseh, so this is something's debatable. Al kol panim, is so this is the Magen Avraham brings this down. At the end of the day, in general, people were not mekabel that. The halacha lemaaseh stands, for whatever reason, is it because we don't agree with this נשתנו הטבעים or because it's had become halachically enshrined, and that's the way it is, and you know, that's the halacha that we're makpid on on on בשר ודגים. However, because of these arguments, we're going to see later on, there are certain kinds of leniencies that maybe we put into play because of this possibility that it's not really a סכנה בזמן הזה. So there are there are different times that this sevara will come up again, even though we're not so we're not so whatever, even though we are makpid on it, we do have these leniencies. The The in in Yoreh Deah is the basic halacha. In

Yoreh Deah, the basic halacha says like this, we'll read the Mechaber and the Rema, is the Mechaber in סעיף ב׳ in סימן קט״ז says the following: צריך ליזהר שלא לאכול בשר ודג ביחד מפני שקשה לצרעת. So what what the the Mechaber says is that you're not supposed to eat fish and meat together, meat and fish together, because it can cause tzaraat. It can cause tzaraat. So דבר אחר, obviously, he held was not a basis for the halacha. The Gemara is just telling us that that's the metziut. That's what happens. But if you want to get bad breath, gezuntheit, you're allowed to go ahead and get bad breath. That's not an issue, the Gemara is not oser it because of that. The reason for the halacha is because מפני שקשה לצרעת. So the Rema then brings down is וכן אין לצלות בשר עם דג משום ריחא. We know in halacha, and this is beyond the scope of today, is that the that the that foods can absorb flavor not only by being put into close contact with each other, but even if they're far apart, to a certain distance from each other, if you're going to go ahead and bake them or broil them in the same oven, is you're going to go ahead and transfer the flavor from one to the other. So he brings down: וכן אין לצלות בשר עם דג משום ריחא. You're not supposed to cook them in the same oven at the same time because the flavor will go from one to the other. Why? Because the smell, so smell and flavor is more or less the same thing. Most of flavor is from the smell, as we know, and mimela it'll go from one thing to the other, right? Every time you eat food is most of the flavor is coming from your nose, not from your tongue. Is מיהו בדיעבד אינו אסור. So bediavad it's not assur. And the reason for this is because lema'aseh we say at the end of the day that ריחא לאו מילתא היא, is that even though it is a flavor, but it's such a minute amount of stuff going from one to the other, we're not concerned about it. So therefore, the Rama says that baking them together is not going to be an issue. This is what the the Rama writes. We continue to the next halacha. The

next halacha goes on: ירחץ ידיו בין בשר לדג, ויאכל פת שרוי בינתיים כדי לרחוץ פיו. A person has to go ahead and wash his hands between בשר ודגים, and eat bread that is soaked with a liquid, and by doing that you wash out your mouth. So this is the shita of the Mechaber, is the Mechaber paskens that it requires רחיצת ידים, you have to wash your hands between בשר לדג. So this goes mamash to the other extreme, is that we already see two two interesting things, I mean, but the the the let's at least dwell on this right now, is that the the Mechaber says that not only you're not allowed to eat them together, but we start giving them chumrot of mamash like being not kasher. And therefore a person has to go ahead עד כדי כך, and when you ate meat and fish By the way, is you know, people always want to know, well, this is like a little bit of a she'eilah. This is a little bit of a she'eilah, is what about We were always talking about, you know, most people end up eating fish first and then meat. So let me just interject with something that I, you know, just a little little spot over here, is that that, you know, there's they eat the fish first and then the meat, which is less of a problem. The problem becomes more and then we talk about washing out the mouth and everything.

What about if you eat meat first and then fish? So we know that if it's milchigs, you have to wait six hours. Is there any such kind of thing that you have to wait six hours after eating meat before you eat the before you eat fish? Or do we say it's the same exact halacha? Now the the simple reading of the is of of the Mechaber is that it's ירחץ ידיו בין בשר לדג. It's mamash even if the meat comes first, it doesn't say דג אחר כך בשר. But he says stam that if you have between בשר and דגים, he says you should go ahead and do what we just mentioned, wash your hands and wash out your mouth, and that's good enough. So lema'aseh that's a pshitus, and I do know that there are certain chasidim that Shabbos by day, they have a minhag specifically to fish at the end of the meal. They take a piece of fish at the end of the meal, not at the beginning of the meal. So lema'aseh from that also a re'iyah that it doesn't make a it doesn't make a chiluk between one and the other. On the other hand, there are there's mentioned some poskim, and I don't remember, somewhere out there, there are poskim who bring down that when a person does eat meat first and then fish, is they should make sure to clean out between the teeth. Right? So it becomes a whole thing, you have to sit there and floss out between your teeth or take a toothpick and clean it out, make sure there's no pieces of meat left in there. So that's a an opposing view obviously to this. The pshitus in halacha is is that if you ate meat and you just wash out your thing, it seems to be that, for whatever reason, we're not so makpid on necessarily cleaning out between the teeth for that. But anyway, getting back to what we were talking about. So the

Mechaber brings down is that if you eat fish or meat, and then you the way you want to wash out your mouth, you wash out with bread that is soaked in liquid, and that's how you wash out your mouth. He brings down, ויש אומרים דאין לחוש לזה. So the Mechaber The Rama says, no, he says there are those that say that this whole halacha does not apply at all in such a situation. רק כשמבשלם יחד ואכלם, is the only time that the Gemara אסר it, it's only the only thing that's not good is not eating fish and meat, or meat and fish. That that that's not going to do the that's not going to create the צרעת issue. The only time that there's an issur over here is only when you cook them together. אבל לאכלם זה אחר זה אין לחוש. But to eat one after the other, there is no problem at all. It's problems when you put them together and you cook them together, that's where there is the problem. This is what the This is what the Rema says. וכן נוהגין שלא לרחוץ פה ולא ידים ביניהם. So l'maaseh at the end of the day, we do not wash out our mouth, and we do not wash our hands in between, and finish. Okay, that's what the Rema says. However, mikol makom,

nevertheless, יש לאכול דבר ביניהם ולשתות דהוי קינוח והדחה. So this is an interesting thing where the Rema goes ahead and makes some kinds of פשרה over here. He says b'etzem the Gemara never tells us that you can't have fish and meat separately. The Gemara only says you can't cook them together. That's what the Gemara always he said, when he said originally, when you cook the two things together, so then it chas v'shalom can create these kinds of sakana. But to go ahead and eat one after the other is not an issue. Nevertheless, he says there's still a minhag is to go ahead and to we don't wash our our mouth out, we don't wash our hands, but we eat something and we drink something, and that is kinuach v'hadachah. Okay, so this is what the the Rema says. The in in in, it's interesting what he writes in Orach Chaim is slightly different, the Mechaber. So the Mechaber says בין בשר לדגים חובה ליטול, you're mechuyav to wash your hands משום דקשה לדבר אחר, and he writes that וחמירא סכנתא מאיסורא. So this is an idea that we're going to be seeing a few times right now. There's a concept that a sakana is even worse than an issur, and therefore if you have to wash your hands between fish and meat, kal vachomer, I'm sorry, between milk and meat, kal vachomer between fish and meat, because l'maaseh at the end of the day, this is something which is mamash a sakana. This is what he writes over here. There's a lot of interesting minhagim that have cropped up over this halacha. What what do people do? L'maaseh, so, I mean the Mechaber holds, this is what he holds, the Mechaber is very machmir on this, to know, based on different Rishonim. Obviously, it's not based on the Rambam, the Rambam doesn't bring this at all, but various other Rishonim who bring that a person should go ahead and do this. You have the Rosh saying like this, the Rosh we'll see is also machmir some other ideas. And lemaaseh is so they bring to be very, very machmir on this. Some people are so machmir, other people are not so machmir on this. The the Rema, the Rema on the other hand, shita is we'll see, we'll see exactly what I'm talking about in a moment, is the Rema on the other hand says, no, you just eat something and you drink something. There's a Shlah that writes that, let me see, Mishnah Berurah brings this down here, he brings down a Chochmat Adam, which is based on a Shlah. He brings down וזה לשונו, יש נוהגים לרחוץ ידיהם בין בשר ודגים. There's a minhag that some people have to wash their hands between בשר ודגים. So there are people who are machmir, there's even Ashkenazim are also makpid, some people are makpid on it. There are some Sefardim who are makpid on this, and others who are not makpid on this also. אבל אין מן הצורך. He says you don't need to do this, the Mishnah Berurah writes in the name of the

Chochmat Adam. Why? Because it's not מן הדין. You don't have to be machmir on this to wash your hands, it's like we saw in the in the Rema that you don't have to be machmir. ומכל מקום, he writes these mysterious words at the end, ישתה דבר ביניהם שלא לאכלם ביחד, עד כאן לשונו. Is what you should do is make sure to drink something in between. So, the truth of the matter, so this is this is what the the Chochmat Adam writes, and I think developed upon this is what's a minhag, which most people are, is when they're eating meat, fish and they want to eat meat, so they drink something in between, and that's all. And that's the way it sounds like from the Mishnah Berurah, and the way the Chochmat Adam brings down is that you drink alone and finished. Based on that, started another minhag. Started another minhag. We know that Tosafot brings, in Moed Katan I think, Tosafot brings is that it's a sakanah, I don't know where Tosafot, he got this from, but Tosafot says it's a sakanah to go ahead and to drink water after eating fish. You're not allowed to drink water. So the olam says that since there's a sakanah to do that, so this is where the minhag came to make a l'chaim after eating fish. Right, the whole thing to get out the the schnapps or whatever else is to go ahead and to drink it because schnapps does not qualify for water. It's a it's a different kind of liquid, and therefore if you want to if you want to have this drink that the Mishnah Berurah, the Chochmat Adam is talking about, you could mekayem it with making a l'chaim. So this is what the olam says, that this is the the מקור, that Tosafot is the מקור for this minhag. It's brought down, Rabbi Akiva Eiger brings this down, this Tosafot in Moed Katan. So, okay, so we don't want to drink water, so we drink something else, and we drink it and finished. The

problem with this is, is that the מקור for this halacha, if you look carefully at it, it really seems to be saying something else. The מקור for this Chochmat Adam is is a Shelah, and the Shelah really means to say that on top of doing everything else, on top of eating something, on top of drinking something, I'm sorry, on top of washing out your mouth with something, you should make sure to drink something also, it seems like he's saying on top of that. So, lemaaseh, according to that, is really it's a chumra. It's a chumra what the what the Shelah is saying, that on top of everything else is, besides this washing out your mouth, you have to go ahead and make sure to drink something. So, this is the so, this is a she'eilah a little bit. Lemaaseh, di velt iz noheg, I think, to be mekil with this, is that you go ahead and you drink something and finished. There's nothing else, you don't have to eat something. The the פשוט Rama is, is that you have to eat something and drink something, and that's like you're washing out your mouth. And it seems like there were some people who were more machmir. They would eat something and wash out their mouth, and then drink something on top of that in order to wash down whatever left over in their mouth. So, these are three different shittot over here, but it seems to be the the minhag of the world is to be mekil, that you make a l'chaim and gemarnu and finished. And that's that. Lemaaseh, other people probably don't know about this, so you don't have to go around telling everybody it's a sakana to drink water after eating fish. If people don't know about it, it won't hurt them. And but lemaaseh, so some people don't seem to necessarily have that minhag either, so the minhag is just to drink something, and and they go ahead and they and they could eat their their meat also. So, this is the this is the שיטות לגבי לגבי this issue.

There there's another she'eilah. This this comes up, a issue with there's hashgachot that give, for example, OU fish. You look on the label, it says, \"OU fish,\" and what does that mean? Well, the answer is very simple: the reason why they put OU fish on it, just like OU-D dairy, is because it's by these kinds of sauces, Worcestershire sauce, and they go ahead and they put kinds of fish in there. And lemaaseh, if they have fish in there, so now you have a problem that you can't go ahead and use it, use it with meat. So, there's two she'eilot that come up. First, we'll talk about the bediavad שאלה. Let's say you go ahead, and somebody serves you Worcestershire sauced meat, somebody went ahead, and they put down a piece of plate with you, and they told you this was cooked with Worcestershire sauce. Are you allowed to go ahead and are you allowed to eat that fish, meat? Lemaaseh, at the end of the day, it says, \"OU fish\" on it, and it was mixed into the meat. So, does that meat become bediavad treif or not? So, here we come, start getting into very, very type of gray area, which is very, very, very unclear. The

Taz, on one hand, argues, he says that, and l'chorah, it's very sevara'dik. It's very, very sevara'dik. It's a logical, it's very logical what he's saying. He says that it's true, we find that when we're talking about when we're talking about issurim, for example, we talk about milk into meat: I'm cooking my cholent on Shabbos, and I have a geshmaka pot of cholent bubbling away, and I'm looking at it, and as a klutz, so I have my cup of coffee in my hand as I'm looking into the pot of cholent, and I spill my coffee into the cholent, or a little bit of it splatters, I shake my hand, a little bit splatters into the cholent, and now, all of a sudden, I have milk inside my cholent. So, are you allowed to eat it or not? So, we all know that there's a din of bitul b'shishim. If something that's asur, so the milk does not make the cholent treif if it's less than 1/60th of what's inside the cholent pot. Obviously, this is a shailah for someone to be asked about because whatever, there are a lot of complicated issues with it and everything. But in general, that is the that is the halacha. The halacha is that we find that there's a din of bitul b'shishim. The problem is over here. So, when we're talking about over here, I take that Worcestershire sauce and I mix it into my pot of food, so the truth of the matter is, is that it's a little amount. You take a little bit of this thing, and the fish in it is a tiny amount, and you mix it into the pot, it's definitely going to be batel b'shishim under normal recipes. I mean, unless you're you're one of these people who like eats eating like, you know, three parts ketchup for one part meat, and you do the same thing with the Worcestershire sauce, I don't know if there's anybody in the universe like that, but lemaaseh, if such a person would be different, but under normal circumstances, you put a little bit of sauce in there, and there's a lot of meat, and l'chorah, it should become batel b'shishim without any kind of issue. But the fish itself is probably not. They add it in also, but it's not a... a thing that, in of itself, it helps a little bit, but it's not it's not a it's not an עבידא לטעמא. It's not an עבידא לטעמא type thing, the fish by itself. It's a good question. But it's, l'chorah, the other stuff is much more stronger. This is like a mashehu of a thing. Everything has a taam. Yeah. Okay, that also could be. That's That's We're going to talk about these kinds of shailos in a moment. הקיצור למעשה is that the the the the problem is, so you have this little bit of of of fish in there, so does it become batel b'shishim? Lemaaseh, the Taz holds is that while there is a הלכה בטל בששים לגבי איסורים, but he says when we're talking about something that's like poison, so you're going to go ahead and tell, take a little bit rat poison and you mix it into your food, and then you say, \"I'm going to eat this cuz it's batel b'shishim.\" I don't suggest doing that. I don't think the poison controls thing would tell you like, you know, if a guy has poisoned himself, so drink some more stuff and don't worry about it, it's batel b'shishim. Is that's not going to happen. So lemaaseh, there is no din of bitul b'shishim. And that's what the Taz says. He says, \"How could there be such a thing as bitul b'shishim?\" And mimeila, he holds that um that it's not going to be a problem. There will be a problem. There will be a problem. Well, putting yourself into a kind of disease like this, a terrible disease, like I mean, no, it's not direct סכנת נפשות, but it could kill a person and it's considered to be bad enough that you can't do this. The um Okay. So, lemaaseh is the the the the the Taz brings a re'iyah that uh from a case where it says that if a person goes ahead In those days, they were makpid. I don't want to get into this she'eilah over here now, but there's something called גילוי, that if you leave water overnight out in the open, or even for less than overnight, if you leave water uh out in the open uh for a little while, even sometimes Times of Chazal, that they were scared that a נחש went ahead and drink from it and leave a little bit poison. So over there, the halachah is is that even though you have hundreds of gallons of water, is lema'aseh is the fact that the נחש went ahead and took a little uh a took a little sip from it and maybe left a drop of poison in these hundreds of gallons of water, is still considered a reason to aser all of that those hundreds of gallons of water that were left out in the open. So, mimaila, so he says, if that's the case, so he says that that's going to be That is going to be a problem. And once again, the same words again, it's because of the concept of חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא. Is lema'aseh, sakanah is worse than issur. And issur, ein hachi nami, is going to be בטל בששים, but over here, it's not going to be בטל בששים. Now, the truth of the matter is, it's a little bit hard to understand. That argument of חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא is really something totally different. What that is saying is, is that when you have a halachic issue, so then you have to be more worried about a sakanah than you have to be worried about issur. You have to be more worried about a sakanah than you have to be worried about issur. Over here, this is a מציאותדיק issue. Right? What we're trying to argue is that the metziut of a the metziut of a the metziut of a uh poison is not going to be בטל בששים. This has nothing to do with the fact that חמירא חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא. But anyway, that's what the poskim bring down, the sevarah of חמירא סכנתא מאיסורא, and lema'aseh, it can't become בטל בששים. Okay. This is what he writes. Now, the uh If a person would take it to this extent, so lema'aseh, we go we go to the to the next point, and that is, okay, so let's say let's say the the ta'am is aser, let's say the ta'am is aser, and now that the flavors are aser, and even if it's בטל בששים it's still going to be aser, it's even if you don't taste it anymore. So likhe'orah, let's go another step, is that if a person has a pot that's a fleishige pot, and you go ahead and you cook fish in it, is lema'aseh, it should be you shouldn't be able to eat it, because, just like we know, is that if you go ahead and you cook milk inside a fleishige pot, you can't go ahead and drink the milk anymore, because lema'aseh it absorbs the flavor of the meat. So,

what is the What is the הלכה נוגע לגבי לגבי that? What's the הלכה נוגע לגבי the uh the the the the fish inside a fleishige pot? So, it seems it should be that it's aser. Lema'aseh, the Rosh held that, at least l'chatchila, a person is supposed to have a fish pot. And there were minhagim by different kehilot in כלל ישראל, על פי this Rosh, is that uh l'maaseh, people used to have a fish pot. There was such a thing. You had a fish pot? Okay, you have a fish pot at home. People have a fish pot. And l'maaseh, at least l'chatchila, people will not go ahead and cook meat inside a a a fish pot. They have a special pot that is designated specifically for fish. However, most, most poskim, and that's a Rosh, the Rosh says like that, the Rosh brings down that one is not supposed to cook meat inside of a fish inside of a meat pot or vice versa. The, however, most poskim disagree. Now, this is where it starts getting a little bit interesting. First of all, the one argument is is that on pure ta'am alone, on pure flavor alone that's inside a pot, there's no sakanah for that anymore. There's no sakanah. The only sakanah is when we're worried is that maybe some of the fish itself got involved with the with the with the meat. Without that, it's not a problem at all. Second of all, second of all, is that there's another a another thing is that there are those who argue that it's even batel b'shishim also. They go back the other way. They say that the whole premise that it's not going to be batel b'shishim because of chamira sakanta me'isura is is is not true because, once again, is that, so this is where it gets hard to understand. There's two ways of understanding what they're trying to say. It's very, very unclear. And this goes back to what we were talking about in the beginning. If you say chamira sakanta me'isura, right? So that's what the argument was. We We don't understand it. What do you mean? What's What does that have to do with chamira sakanta me'isura? This is not an issue of of of sakanah being more more strict than than than than issur. This is a question, is the poison there or not? But what we spoke about in the beginning is that maybe בזמן הזה, the reason why we keep this thing is not so much because there's a sakanah anymore. The real reason why we're keeping this is because למעשה, אזוי שטייט אין הלכה and finish. We're We're not there to go ahead and change what it says in the Gemara. The Gemara says you shouldn't eat this, and finish, we don't eat it, period, the end. So if that's the case, so maybe we could argue one of two things: either we could argue that the reason why it could be batel b'shishim is because it's the ta'am, for some reason the flavor, tasting fish and meat together is what creates the sakanah. L'chorah, it's difficult to help it because we we know that sakanot don't work like that. Things that poison you don't have to do it's not that the rat poison poisons you only if you taste the bad poison. And if you don't taste it, then all of a sudden everything is fine. It's It's not like that at all. So So l'maaseh, but maybe maybe over here is one could argue that the whole thing is based on ta'am. If you taste it, then it's a problem. If you don't taste it, so then it's not a problem. So this is This is one approach. Or the other approach is, like we were just saying a moment ago, is that we're not keeping it so much because of sakanah. Over there, there are strong arguments to say נשתנו הטבעים, things have changed over the years, and we don't observe it, the Rambam left it out, and others maybe ignored this, and and l'maaseh, and and if that being the case, so we we ignore this whole halacha of we're going to ignore this whole halacha of of of b'etzem of fish and meat together. Okay, but we can't because אזוי שטייט אין חז״ל and finish, you know, that's what Yiddishkeit is all about, you know, we keep what it says and finish. We don't ask any questions about the fact that maybe the metziut changed, okay. So l'maaseh, we don't know for sure 100%, whatever, so we're not going to change the halacha because of this. So l'maaseh, azoy shteit and finish. But on the other hand, we're we're fairly certain that there's no sakana anymore. And because of that that we're saying that there is no more sakana, so it could very well be that we'll say that it could become בטל בששים because of that, because l'maaseh we're not going to treat it more than an issur. If something that's issur is בטל בששים, so over here we'll also be lenient because, in reality, the issue's probably not there. Those are the two arguments that could be made for why it should become בטל בששים. The

OU has an interesting shita, and and it's not 100% clear what the mahalach over here is, but when they write on a on a brand of Worcestershire sauce that it's OU fish, they will write that on certain brands and not on other brands. Now if you look in the ingredients, you'll find that both both brands have fish inside of it. Why is one designated one fish and not and the other one not? And it's not like the ones who don't have fish on it paid extra money to get rid of the word fish. That's not the pshat. That is the pshat? No, that's not the pshat. The reason why they do that is for an interesting sevara, is it depends. It depends on the formulation. If the if the fish was already בטל בששים in the bottle. Okay? So then they look at it is that, and this is like a new kind of sevara, is once it's בטל in the bottle, so then they're willing to go with that sevara that there's no taam anymore. So, this bottle of sauce does not have fish in it, right? Because it's already בטל בששים. It's already בטל בששים. L'maaseh, now I go ahead and I mix it into my meat, so, but by then it's already בטל already, so it's like no fish ever got into into the into the into the meat. On the other hand, on the other hand, if it was more than ששים in the bottle, so right so then and then you go ahead and you pour it into the to meat, so now you need the meat to go ahead and to be mevatel it. So you could either argue once again one of two sevarot for this. It's you know, if you learn that it's a halacha type thing, so then you could say, \"Okay, so we're more mekil. Once we look at the bottle of sauce that it's בטל inside the bottle, so now we go ahead and then we'll pour it into the the meat. It's already בטל. So we're not going to be makpid on על פי הלכה with that, cuz it was already בטל. It's not that I'm using the meat to go ahead and to be mevatel it, so we're not so worried about that because it was already בטל.\" So, we can rely rely on those on those shitos al kol panim. Even if we want to be machmir, meaning the the OU is machmir lechatchila for uh ששים, for that ששים will not work to be mevatel fish and meat together. But if it was already בטל beforehand, so then you can say maybe so then we're not so worried about it על פי cuz it's the whole thing is halacha thing, or else you can say maybe it's some kind of some kind of uh reason why Once again, going back to why the taste so the taste is going to be a problem if you mix the taste is becomes בטל in the meat, so then it's a problem. If the taste was already gone before you even got up to the meat, so that is not going to be an an an an issue. Whatever the case is, that's why you'll find some of the these bottles of sauce that do have a uh if have a have a fish designation on it, and others do not have a fish designation on it. There is a uh obviously if you're worried about the sakana issue and you want to be machmir for the ט\"ז 100% and it's a sakanah and you're worried about according to the sevara that the למדות says is that a poison's a poison. So if you're worried with that, obviously, you're not going to make a distinction of whether it was batal in the bottle or not because that's not going to make a difference whether it was if it's a poison it's going to carry through whether there's bitul or not. Um We find We find other sevarot like this, too. I'll give you another example of a kula. The

Pri Megadim, for example, writes that we know, let's say, while you're cooking, we're talking about the cholent pot beforehand, so let's say while you're cooking on Friday afternoon, uh this is something that one should never ever do unless you're a uh unless you're a good uh card player and you like gambling, is cook milchigs and fleishigs on top of your stove at the same time. Not a wise idea. Well, you know, you could try it, but Uh when something splatters from the milchig pot onto the fleishig pot, you run into all kinds of big she'elot. We don't We don't have time to talk about the interesting she'elot that come up, but it's the worst she'elah that can happen in your kitchen when something splatters from milchigs on top of the outside of a fleishig pot. It can make more things treif than you can ever imagine. And so we're not We're not going to go down in that direction. Even a little little tiny drop of milk could make big big problems. Uh you have to ask a rav who knows what he's talking about in order to פסקן that she'elah. But lema'aseh, so that that's a big she'elah. Even though it's on the outside of the pot, we consider it as if the בליעות go through. The Pri Megadim, however, writes that if a person is going ahead and uh and uh cooking his feet meat and his fish together and something splatters from the meat onto the fish pot, he says you don't have to worry about that. Because once again, it's it's similar to the idea that we're talking about a second ago, is that um, you know, we're not worried הלכה למעשה בדיעבד everyone, I think everyone wants מחמיר בדיעבד that a if you cook a fi- a fish inside a meat pot, that it's going to become not edible. Uh lema'aseh, you'll still be able to eat it על פי הלכה. So that being the case, hu hadin, if something splatters on the outside of your pot, you know you're not going to go ahead and to be um You're not going to be machmir on that. Lema'aseh is uh there's other issues with it.

Let's say, for example, knives, is some poskim feel that people should have special knives for fish. They should have fleishig knives and fishy knives. And uh lema'aseh, you should be makpid on that. Um but uh it seems to be probably the minhag, especially בזמננו, I I I don't know if anybody's machmir on having uh fish knives. Uh you don't have fish knives, do you? No. No, nobody has fish knives. ובפרט today, where we wash off our knives very carefully, it's it's hard to imagine there should be a sevara for that at all. I'm sorry, what? Forks? Fish forks, yes, that's ברוך השם we're wealthy enough to be able to afford fish forks. And also it prevents us from having to wash them off in the middle of the meal. Obviously, yeah, a knife that is dirty with meat, you should not be going ahead and cooking and and what's his name and whatever and eating meat with that. Lema'aseh, there's well, we'll leave this aside. We'll just move on, draw more here. The

למעשה בדיעבד, when the she'elah just came up last week, is bediavad if somebody went ahead and did cook did cook your cook a fish together, baked together, fish and meat in the same oven, and assuming both of them were uncovered, and one of them had liquid in it. So all these different kinds of details, but you ended up cooking both of them together. The question is at the end of the day, bediavad, are you allowed to eat it or not? So the person who asked me the she'elah thought that he was the source of the shiur, and because since he asked me that she'elah this was a very important topic to talk about, but that's not why, because somebody else came up, I wasn't the one who came up with the thoughts for this shiur. So maybe מן השמים a ruach came down. But lema'aseh the Rema said: מיהו בדיעבד אינו אסור. The Rama says that bediavad it's reiach is not asur. Now, we run into a problem, and once again we don't have time to go through all of this right here because it's it's way beyond the scope of the shiur. Besides the smell of one going into the other, the smell, we sometimes also run into a zeiah problem, which is a bigger problem. So that's if there's a liquid in there, there's a zeiah problem also. So the problem is, will this be asur or not? And once again, on this, there's a major discussion is whether it's going to be mutar or asur. In fact, the Shach disagrees with the Rama. And the

Shach at the end of the day says is that דאפילו במקום דנוהגים להתיר לענין איסור בדיעבד ריחא מילתא ולעשות לכתחילה, כדי דאיתא בסימן קט״ז, סכנתא אסור אפילו בדיעבד. And lemaaseh is even if it's not wet, even if there's no moisture in there, as long as there's going to be there's the the reiach goes from one to the other, is lemaaseh the Shach says it's asur to eat. So which means is the Shach taking the other approach. The Shach going ahead, and he said it's batal b'shishim and everything, but he says that even when it comes to it's סכנתא, he says it comes out that the smell, if you bake these two things together and the smell of one goes into the other, you have a huge problem. You have a huge problem of of it becoming treif and it's אסור ממש. Lemaaseh, this is also a big, big טומל in the poskim, and exactly when and what, and I know we can't go through all the details. You have to ask a shaila when it comes to this. But it could very well be in our ovens anyway, which possibly have a din of תנורים גדולים, they're considered like to be a big oven and everything, so so lemaaseh, halacha lemaaseh usually you could be meikil in our day and age if you go ahead and cook it in a regular oven is meat and and fish together, but once again this is something that's somewhat of a shaila. If one is covered, it's not a problem. No. The Yeah, so most poskim say chicken is the same thing, yes. There are those who want to make a distinction between chicken and meat, but the consensus is that there is no difference between chicken and meat. It was one other thing I wanted to talk about here. Yeah,

one thing you have to be careful, when you go to restaurants, you have to know that your hashgacha is makpid on this. There are hashgachot that are not so careful, and you could run into a huge problem. You go into a restaurant and they have a nice menu there. They have a menu that serves meat and that serves fish. So, if you have a half-decent hashgacha, I'm not guaranteeing anything. We'll leave names off the list over here. A half-decent hashgacha will obviously have I mean you've got to be crazy not to do this is you need to have a place to fry the fish, and you need a place to fry the the meat. You need two separate things. And so let's say they're deep fried in oil, so you need a deep fryer for fish, and you need a deep fryer for for the schnitzel, whatever. So this is what they'll they'll definitely have something like that. I think even a half- Where we run into a problem a lot, 'cause if you don't have a decent hashgacha, is that what happens with the pareve stuff? What happens with the french fries? The french fries. And unfortunately, you'll have a lot of hashgachot that will have something designated for fish, but the french fries that they make are all made in the same pot and the same deep fryer as is made the schnitzel and everything else. So mimela, all the french fries are literally literally absorbed by by by fleishigs. So lemaaseh, you end up eating you end up eating fish and and and meat together. To be melamed zechut a little bit, it's not the end of the world because, as we saw in the רמ״א, יש אומרים דאין לחוש לזה. We're only worried about when you cook the two things together, when you cook the fish together with the meat, so that's when we're really worried about it. But the truth of the matter is, as the Rema brought down, our minhag is not like that. Our minhag is that even to eat fish and meat together is not acceptable, you have to wash out in between. So this is something that it turns out to be an issue very often in hashgachos where they're not they don't catch the idea that where do you put the pareve stuff? And therefore, is they have to have be'etzem they need three different deep fryers. You need one for fish, and one for meat, and one for french fries and everything else that goes in there. So this is something that's important to know. No, ketchup does not work, and neither does Worcestershire sauce. Anyway, the french fries are בטל בששים, so then, I don't know, anyway, this is purely ליצנות. That's one she'eilah.

Another she'eilah comes up is by קידושים. We know that in in Shulchan Aruch it talks about the idea that if you're sitting at a table and you have two people, and one of them is eating fleishigs and one is eating milchigs, so there are all kinds of halachos that you have to put something in between, a heker that they shouldn't go ahead and start eating the person who eats fleishigs eat from the milchigs, milchigs from the fleishigs, they shouldn't share the food together. And there's all kinds of halachos relevant to this. The question is, do these halachos also apply to fish and meat? Fish and meat or not? So the consensus among the poskim at the end of the day is that probably you should not you should not have to be machmir for this. And they say a sevara because there's no יצר הרע for it. Because if you want to eat fish and then meat or meat and fish, it's very easy: you take a drink in between according to our minhag, or if you want to be machmir and you want to eat something and drink something, or if you want to go with the other you want to wash out your mouth and do everything else. But at the end of the day, you can go ahead and you could have your your fish and meat, there's no יצר הרע for it, so we're not worried about it. So lema'aseh, the poskim say based on that that there's absolutely nothing wrong with putting fish and meat on the table at the same time, and lema'aseh it is מותר על פי הלכה. The only thing you have to say once again is that doing it at home maybe you can get away with it, but at a simchah very often this turns into a huge disaster scene. Very often you have the whitefish right next to the to the chopped liver, and and splattering issues and all other kinds of things, or you have people at a simchah at a table and the fish is being passed and the cholent is being passed and it's lema'aseh, so in in such situations you have to be a little bit more careful, and depending on the situation, but definitely like when you put out the the the the the tables and you have the smart thing to do is to tell caterers is they should keep the fish on one side, and move the liver to the other side, and the cold cuts should be together with the liver, and they should have all the salads in between in order to avoid any such kinds of problems. So this is the this is the issue of fish and meat together.

One last thing we'd just like to mention is it was brought down on the sheet over here, which really takes us a little bit off track, is what's the halachah with fish and milk together? Fish and milk. What's the story with fish and milk? So lema'aseh, the story with fish and milk is that it starts off with a mistake. There's a mistake, and it's almost for sure 99.999% a mistake. It's probably 100% a mistake. In the Beit Yosef, in the middle of a discussion of fish and meat together, is he writes that therefore, if you have fish and milk together, it's asur. In the middle of a discussion of fish and meat, all of a sudden became fish and milk. So everyone, I mean originally most people brought down that it's a mistake. It's a mistake. Because obviously from the whole discussion over there, it doesn't fit in over there. It's not like he has a separate halachah of fish and milk, it's talking in the middle of a halachah. The problem is is that this statement of the Beit Yosef was brought down by the Levush. Levush brings it down, and he leaves it, he leaves it in position. And he doesn't he doesn't correct it. So, it started becoming becoming something. And lema'aseh, it turns out that there were many, many people who were who were machmir. And we don't have time to go into the whole concept of fish and milk together and everything, but at the end of the day, the strongest source for this is a Rabbeinu Bachya. There's a Rabbeinu Bachya in Parashat Mishpatim that says that the doctors told him that it's not healthy to eat fish and milk together. That is the that is the the the basic the the basic source for it. There is no other really strong source for this thing. But lema'aseh, there are various people who have these minhagim to have not to eat fish based on this thing, is not to eat fish and milk together. Lema'aseh, the sources are very, very weak for it, but nevertheless, a minhag is a minhag, and some people have it. And, unfortunately, those people cannot have lox and bagels with cream cheese on it, and they'll have to leave out the cream cheese. But, at the end of the day, is there is such a minhag, and it exists, and we'll just have to leave it with that. Okay.