(a)The Mishnah forbids cooking all kinds of meat in milk except for two. Which two?
(b)The Isur is basically min ha'Torah. Which kind of meat is Asur only mi'de'Rabbanan?
(c)What does the Tana say about bringing meat and cheese simultaneously to the table at which one is eating?
(d)Why is that?
(e)On what grounds did they include fowl in the latter Isur, even though eating them together (See Tosfos Yom Tov) is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan?
1)
(a)The Mishnah forbids cooking all kinds of meat in milk except for - fish and locusts (See Tosfos Yom Tov).
(b)The Isur is basically min ha'Torah - except for fowl, which is Asur only mi'de'Rabbanan (See Tosfos Yom Tov DH 'Kol ha'Basar' 2).
(c)The Tana - forbids bringing meat and cheese simultaneously to the table at which one is eating ...
(d)... in case one places one on top of the other.
(e)They included fowl in the latter Isur, even though eating them together (See Tosfos Yom Tov) is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan - in case one comes to bring the meat of animals together with cheese in a boiling pot.
2)
(a)If someone declares a Neder not to eat meat, which two kinds of meat is he permitted to eat?
(b)Why is that, considering that they fall under the category of meat?
(c)We just learned that one may not bring fowl to the table together with cheese. What do Beis Shamai say about this?
(d)Why can we not ask that Beis Hillel, who forbid it, are merely reiterating the opinion of the Tana Kama?
(e)Why is this not a case of 'a S'tam Mishnah that is followed by a Machlokes' (in which the Halachah is like the Machlokes [like Beis Shamai])?
2)
(a)If someone declares a Neder not to eat meat, he is permitted to eat - fish and locusts ...
(b)... despite the fact that they are classified as meat - because when it comes to Nedarim, we go after the colloquial, and people tend not to consider them meat.
(c)We just learned that one may not bring fowl to the table together with cheese. Beis Shamai rule - that although they may not be eaten together, they may be brought to the table together.
(d)We cannot ask that Beis Hillel, who forbid it, are merely reiterating the opinion of the Tana Kama - because the Mishnah is actually saying that the Tana Kama's ruling is in fact a Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.
(e)This is not a case of 'a S'tam Mishnah that is followed by a Machlokes' (in which the Halachah is like the Machlokes [like Beis Shamai]) - due the principle that 'Beis Shamai in face of Beis Hillel is not considered a Mishnah' (See Tosfos Yom Tov).
3)
(a)What does Rebbi Yossi comment on the above Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel?
(b)Why does the Mishnah see fit to mention it?
(c)What does the Tana finally say about placing meat and cheese on the serving table?
3)
(a)Rebbi Yossi comments on the above Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel that - this is one of the cases where Beis Shamai is lenient, and Beis Hillel, strict.
(b)The Mishnah sees fit to mention it - to each us that the Tana Kama is Rebbi Yossi (a fact that he forgot to mention earlier).
(c)The Tana finally - permits placing meat and cheese on the serving table without compunction (See Tosfos Yom Tov & Tiferes Yisrael).
Mishnah 2
4)
(a)On what condition does the Mishnah permit wrapping meat and cheese together in the same cloth?
(b)Why, if they do touch and both of them are cold?
4)
(a)The Mishnah permits wrapping meat and cheese together in the same cloth - provided they do not touch each other.
(b)In the event that they do, even if both of them are cold - they require washing.
5)
(a)What does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say about two guests eating at the same table if one of them is eating meat, and the other, cheese?
(b)On what condition does he permit it?
(c)Why does he forbid it if they are acquaintances?
(d)Like whom is the Halachah?
5)
(a)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permits two guests to eat at the same table, if one of them is eating meat, and the other, cheese ...
(b)... provided they are strangers.
(c)He forbids it if they are acquaintances - in case they eat from one another's food.
(d)The Halachah is - like him.
Mishnah 3
6)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a drop of milk that falls on to a piece of meat in a pot. How much milk must fall on it to render it Asur?
(b)Why do we not take into consideration the other pieces of meat and the gravy in the pot?
(c)What must one need do (one of two things) to permit the entire pot?
(d)Even if one did not do so, on what condition will all the other pieces nevertheless be permitted?
(e)If one stirs the pot, on what condition will all the other pieces too be forbidden?
6)
(a)The Mishnah now discusses a drop of milk that falls on to a piece of meat in a pot. To render it Asur - it must be Nosein Ta'am (more than one in sixty).
(b)We do not take into consideration the other pieces of meat and the gravy in the pot - because it is speaking where the piece in question is entirely outside the gravy (See Tosfos Yom Tov).
(c)To permit the entire pot, one must - either stir the pot or cover it (See Tosfos Yom Tov) immediately.
(d)Even if one did not do so all the other pieces will nevertheless be permitted - if they total sixty times the piece that became Asur.
(e)And if one stirs the pot, all the other pieces too will be forbidden - if they do not total Shishim (See Tosfos Yom Tov DH 'Im Yesh bah').
7)
(a)What must one do with the udder of an animal after Shechitah, if one wants to cook it together with other pieces of meat?
(b)What does 'Kor'o' entail?
(c)What if one wants to cook it on its own without tearing it open?
(d)Then why does the Tana say 'Eino Over alav', suggesting that it is forbidden?
(e)What will be the Din if one cooks the udder together with other pieces of meat without removing the milk, with regard to ...
1. ...the other pieces?
2. ... the udder itself
7)
(a)If one wants to cook the udder of an animal together with other pieces of meat - one must first tear it open ('Kor'o') and remove the milk inside it (See Tosfos Yom Tov).
(b)'Kor'o' entails - tearing it 'Shesi and Areiv' (in both direction, in the form of a cross), and smearing it on the wall).
(c)If one wants to cook it on its own without tearing it open - one may ...
(d)... and the Tana say 'Eino Over alav', suggesting that it is forbidden - because that is what it writes with regard to the heart (where it is in fact forbidden, as we shall see shortly).
(e)If one cooks the udder together with other pieces of meat without removing the milk ...
1. ... the other pieces - are permitted, provided there is Shishim (including the udder), though ...
2. ... the udder itself - is forbidden forever (See Tosfos Yom Tov).
8)
(a)In similar vein, what procedure must one follow before cooking the heart of an animal?
(b)Here too, the Tana says that if one eats the heart without first tearing it open, one has not transgressed. What exactly, has one not transgressed?
(c)The Gemara in K'risus establish this latter ruling by the heart of a bird, and not of animal. What would be the Din regarding the heart of an animal?
(d)Why the difference?
(e)On what grounds is the heart itself permitted? Why is it not forbidden due to all the blood that it has absorbed?
8)
(a)In similar vein, before cooking the heart of an animal - one must tear it open and remove the blood that is inside.
(b)Here too, the Tana says that if one eats the heart without first tearing it open, one has not transgressed - the Isur Kareis.
(c)The Gemara in K'risus establish this latter ruling by the heart of a bird, and not of animal - in which case one would be Chayav Kareis ...
(d)... because whereas the blood that is found in the heart of a bird does not total a k'Zayis, that which is found in the heart of an animal, does.
(e)The heart itself is permitted - because its smooth texture prevents it from absorbing blood.
9)
(a)What does the Tana mean when he says that someone who brings fowl to the table together with cheese has not transgressed a Lo Sa'aseh?
(b)Does this mean that it is permitted?
9)
(a)When the Tana says that someone who brings fowl to the table together with cheese has not transgressed a Lo Sa'aseh, he means that - even if he were to eat them together, he would not transgress a La'av.
(b)It is nevertheless forbidden to do so (as we learned in the first Mishnah in the Perek).
Mishnah 4
10)
(a)Which two distinctions does the Mishnah draw between meat and milk, both of a Kasher animal on the one hand, and meat and milk, one of which is of a Kasher animal, and the other, of a non-Kasher one, on the other?
(b)Assuming that from two of the three times that one learns the Isur Achilah and the Isur Hana'ah in the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo", what do we learn from the third ...
1. ... "G'di"?
2. ... "ba'Chalev Imo"?
(c)What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the fact that the Torah writes the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " three times?
(d)If by implication, "G'di" automatically precludes Beheimah Teme'ah, how does it preclude Chayah (bearing in mind the principle that 'Chayah is generally included in Beheimah')?
(e)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Vayishlach Yehudah es G'di ha'Izim"?
10)
(a)The two distinctions that the Mishnah draws between meat and milk, both of a Kasher animal on the one hand, and meat and milk, one of which is of a Kasher animal, and the other, of a non-Kasher one, on the other, are that - whereas the former are forbidden to cook together and to derive benefit from (See Tosfos Yom Tov [as well as to eat]), regarding the latter, they are permitted.
(b)Assuming that from two of the three times that one learns the Isur Achilah and the Isur Hana'ah in the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo", we learn from the third ...
1. ... "G'di" - that cooking the meat of a non-Kasher animal together with milk (even of a Kasher animal) is permitted
2. ... "ba'Chalev Imo" - that cooking the meat (even of a Kasher animal) in the milk of a non-Kasher one is permitted.
(c)From the fact that the Torah writes the Pasuk "Lo Sevashel G'di ... " three times, Rebbi Akiva learns that - Chayah, Of and Beheimah Teme'ah (See Tosfos Yom Tov) are precluded from the Isur.
(d)If by implication, "G'di" automatically precludes Beheimah Teme'ah, it precludes Chayah (in spite of the principle that 'Chayah is generally included in Beheimah' [See Tosfos Yom Tov]) - by virtue of the fact that the word is superfluous.
(e)From the Pasuk in Vayishlach "Vayishlach Yehudah es G'di ha'Izim", we learn that - wherever the Torah writes "G'di" S'tam it incorporates all young animals.
11)
(a)According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, what does the fact that the Torah in Re'ei juxtaposes the two Pesukim "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" and "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo"in the same Pasuk teach us?
(b)What do we learn from the words "ba'Chaleiv Imo"?
(c)In which point does Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili then argue with Rebbi Akiva? What does Rebbi he hold is Asur min ha'Torah that Rebbi Akiva holds is Mutar?
11)
(a)According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, the fact that the Torah in Re'ei juxtaposes the two Pesukim "Lo Sochlu Kol Neveilah" and "Lo Sevashel G'di ba'Chaleiv Imo" in the same Pasuk, teaches us that - whatever is subject to the Isur of Neveilah, is also subject to that of Basar be'Chalav.
(b)We learn from the words "ba'Chaleiv Imo" that - the above Limud does not pertain to fowl ...
(c)And he argues with Rebbi Akiva with regard to - Basar Chayah, which he maintains is Asur d'Oraysa, whereas Rebbi Akiva holds that it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.
12)
(a)Alternatively, they argue over Basar be'Chalav with regard to Of. What is their Machlokes?
(b)How do we know that Rebbi Akiva forbids it?
(c)Like whom is the Halachah?
12)
(a)Alternatively, they argue over Basar be'Chalav with regard to Of, which - according to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, is Mutar, whilst Rebbi Akiva holds that it is Asur mi'de'Rabanan ...
(b)... which we can extrapolate from his statement 'Eino min ha'Torah'.
(c)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Akiva.
Mishnah 5
13)
(a)What does the Tana mean when he says '*Keivas Nochri ve'shel Neveilah* harei Zu Asurah?'
(b)What is he actually referring to?
(c)And what does he say about milk that one places inside the skin of a stomach to turn into cheese? On what condition will the milk become Asur?
13)
(a)When the Tana says '*Keivas Nochri ve'shel Neveilah* harei Zu Asurah' he means that - the stomach of an animal that a Nochri Shechted, that has the Din of a Neveilah.
(b)He is actually referring to - the congealed milk that is inside the stomach.
(c)He also rules that if one places milk inside the skin of a stomach to turn into cheese - it will become Asur if the skin, which is Basar, gives taste (if the milk is not sixty times the amount of the skin).
14)
(a)How will the Din differ if the skin is that of a Neveilah?
(b)Why the difference?
(c)What has this to do with the fact that the Chachamim forbade the cheese of Nochrim?
(d)Then why do we not forbid the 'stomach' in our Mishnah for the same reason?
(e)On what grounds does the Rambam permit the congealed milk that is inside the stomach of an animal?
14)
(a)If the skin is that of a Neveilah - the congealed milk will be Asur even if it does not give taste to the milk ...
(b)... since the skin is Ma'amid, and we always go after the Ma'amid.
(c)In fact - this is the reason that they forbade cheese of Nochrim (who manufacture cheese in this way).
(d)And the reason that we do not forbid the 'stomach' in our Mishnah for the same reason is - because the stomach itself is not intrinsically Asur.
(e)The Rambam permits the congealed milk (See Tosfos Yom Tov DH 'ha'Ma'amid') that is inside the stomach of an animal - because he considers it 'Pirsha be'Alma' (a mere secretion).
15)
(a)What does Rashi say about the congealed milk that is inside the stomach of an animal that one salts in its skin?
(b)What did he originally say, based on the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, which permits a Kohen who is not finicky to eat 'the stomach' of an Olah raw?
(c)What is the next statement in our Mishnah that caused Rashi to retract and forbid it?
(d)On what grounds does the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah then permit a Kohen to eat 'the stomach' of an Olah raw?
(e)Why does the Mishnah finally permit the 'stomach' of a T'reifah calf that suckled from a Kasher cow?
15)
(a)Rashi - declares Asur the congealed milk that is inside the stomach of an animal that one salts in its skin.
(b)Originally, based on the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah, which permits a Kohen who is not finicky to eat 'the stomach' of an Olah raw, he ruled that - it is permitted (like the Rambam that we just cited).
(c)The next statement in our Mishnah that caused Rashi to retract and forbid it is - if a Kasher animal suckled from a T'reifah, the 'stomach' is Asur.
(d)And the reason that the Gemara in Avodah-Zarah permits a Kohen to eat 'the stomach' of an Olah raw is - because it is considered an independent entity (not part of the animal).
(e)The Mishnah finally permits the 'stomach' of a T'reifah calf that suckled from a Kasher cow - for the same reason (bearing in mind that the milk was that of a Kasher cow [See Tosfos Yom Tov]).
Mishnah 6
16)
(a)What does the Mishnah say about the corollary between Cheilev and blood?
(b)The Tana lists two Chumros of Cheilev over blood. One of them that, unlike blood, it is subject to Me'ilah. What is the other (triple) Chumra?
(c)How does the first Chumra pertain even to Kodshim Kalim, which are Mamon Ba'alim (the property of the owner, and not of Hekdesh)?
(d)From which Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Cheilev) does the Tana learn it?
16)
(a)The Mishnah states that - in some points Cheilev is more stringent than blood, and in others, blood is more stringent than Cheilev (See Tosfos Yom Tov).
(b)The Tana lists two Chumros of Cheilev over blood. One of them that, unlike blood, it is subject to Me'ilah; the other that - it is subject to Pigul, Nosar and Tamei.
(c)The first Chumra pertains even to Kodshim Kalim, which are Mamon Ba'alim (the property of the owner, and not of Hekdesh) - if the blood has already been sprinkled, at which point the Cheilev becomes the property of Hash-m, and must be brought on the Mizbe'ach.
(d)The Tana learns it from the Pasuk in Vayikra - "Kol Cheilev la'Hashem".
17)
(a)What does the Tana mean when he says that Cheilev is subject to Tum'ah?
(b)But is one not anyway Chayav Kareis for eating Cheilev?
(c)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Tzav (in connection with blood) " ... al ha'Mizbe'ach Lechaper"?
(d)Why is blood not subject to Pigul?
(e)And what do we learn from the two Mi'utim (ibid.) "Hu" and "Lachem" written in connection with blood?
17)
(a)When the Tana says that Cheilev is subject to Tum'ah, he means that - somebody who eats it when he is Tamei is Chayav.
(b)Granted, one is anyway Chayav Kareis for eating Cheilev - but, should he eat it be'Shogeg, he is Chayav to bring two Korbanos.
(c)We learn from the Pasuk in Tzav " ... al ha'Mizbe'ach Lechaper" that - blood is subject to atonement but not to Me'ilah.
(d)Nor is it subject to Pigul - because only something that has a Matir (something that permits it to be eaten or to go on the Mizbe'ach) is subject to Pigul, but not blood, which is itself a Matir.
(e)And from the two Mi'utim (ibid.) "Hu" and "Lachem", also written in connection with blood, we learn that - it is also precluded from Nosar and from Tum'ah.
18)
(a)What is the sole Chumra of blood over Cheilev?
(b)And what do we learn from the Pasuk there (in connection with Cheilev) " ... min ha'Beheimah asher Yakriv mimenah"?
18)
(a)The sole Chumra of blood over Cheilev is that - the Isur applies to Beheimah, Chayah and Of (See Tosfos Yom Tov), whereas that of Cheilev is confined to Beheimah.
(b)And from the Pasuk there " ... min ha'Beheimah asher Yakriv mimenah", we learn that - the latter is confined to the Cheilev of a Kasher Beheimah.
