1) Tzara'as did not disappear with the destruction of the first Beis ha'Mikdash. We learn this from Berachos 5b, where Rebbi Yochanan (who lived after the destruction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash) discusses Nega'im. The Gemara questions Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa which says that anyone who possesses one of the four types of Tzara'as mentioned in the Torah is considered to have attained a Mizbe'ach of atonement. The Gemara then makes a distinction between Tzara'as in Eretz Yisrael and Tzara'as in Bavel. We see from here that Tzara'as still existed in the time of the Amora'im.

2) There were two types of Tzara'as. One was caused by Lashon ha'Ra but the other was a natural disease. We learn this from Kesuvos 77b where Rebbi Yochanan says that the reason there were no lepers in Bavel was because they ate leeks, drank beer, and bathed in the Euphrates River. This must be referring to the natural Tzara'as which had been eradicated in Bavel due to good health conditions. However, the Tzara'as caused by Lashon ha'Ra still existed in Bavel, as Rebbi Yochanan himself said in Berachos 5b, as we saw above.

3) I will just make one quick additional comment for the moment but will continue later, bs'd. The Mefarshim discuss why the Rambam makes no mention of the Din of Mar bar Rav Ashi about cooking meat with fish. The Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos, Yoreh Deah 101, DH Ibra) writes that initially he had an idea that possibly "Binisa" mentioned on 76b is a specific kind of fish and it is only this species that one may not eat with meat. Since Binisa is no longer extant, the Rambam did not mention this Halachah. However, the Chasam Sofer then rejects this possibility.

In my next reply I will explain, b'Ezer Hash-m, why nowadays we still may not eat meat cooked with fish.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) The conclusion of the above Chasam Sofer is that the reason the Rambam did not cite the Din of Mar bar Rav Ashi is that nature has changed. However, the reason that we still may not eat fish with meat is that it is possible that this is considered a matter which was forbidden by the Assembly of the Sages and, therefore, a similar convention would be necessary to make it permitted (see Beitzah 5a). After the completion of the Talmud this is not feasible. The Chasam Sofer continues and says that even though meat and fish together are not permitted, this is not because of danger but simply because Chazal forbade it in those times. It follows that if one merely poured hot gravy onto fish (and cleaned off the gravy), the fish would be permitted because the Gezeirah of Chazal was only to eat meat cooked with fish, and, therefore, nowadays that no danger is involved, if only the taste of the meat (but not meat itself) has mixed with the fish, it is not prohibited.

2) The Teshuvos Divrei Malkiel (2:53) adopts a different approach. He argues that even in the times of the Talmud, it was not really dangerous to eat meat cooked with fish. He compares this to the fact that the Gemara in Berachos (44b) states that eating spleen is bad for the entrails, and yet the Poskim do not write that there is a prohibition against eating spleen. It is merely good health advice, not binding Halachah. Similarly, Mar bar Rav Ashi said that meat cooked with fish causes Tzara'as, but this does not necessarily mean that it is forbidden according to the Halachah.

3) The Divrei Malkiel cites a proof for this from the Rambam (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 9:23) who writes that if fish was fried with meat it is forbidden to eat it with milk. This is the opinion of Rava mi'Parzika in Pesachim 76b -- that meat cooked with fish is permitted as long as it is not afterwards eaten with milk, and does not take into account Mar bar Rav Ashi's opinion. This is also the way that the Rif (Chulin, beginning of 31b in the pages of the Rif) cites the Gemara, as is well known that the Rambam usually follows the Rif. The reason why the Rif and the Rambam did not cite the opinion of Mar bar Rav Ashi is that they understood that even in the times of the Gemara it was not binding Halachah.

I still have a few more points to cover, bs'd, but will close here for the moment.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

1) It is interesting to note the way the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 116:2 deals with the issue of meat and fish. He writes:

" One must be careful not to eat meat and fish together because it is bad for tsaraas".

It is somewhat unusual that Shulchan Aruch writes "One must be careful....." rather than saying that this is forbidden.

The aforementioned Divrei Malkiel writes that according to Shulchan Aruch this is a matter of "Zehirut b'Alma", "merely being careful", because even according to Mar bar Rav Ashi no genuine danger was involved.

2) In fact Divrei Malkiel 2:53:3 writes something that surprised me a lot when he asserts that tsaraas is not considered as an illness which presents danger to life. However in 2:53:10 he writes that in practice one should not eat meat with fish because the Shulchan Aruch is against it. So we can say according to Divrei Malkiel that meat and fish is unhealthy even though it does not entail danger to life.

3) To summarize, Chasam Sofer holds that one must not eat meat with fish, because even though it is not dangerous nowadays, nevertheless it was prohibited by a decree of Chazal and nobody has the authority in our times to annul this decree. Divrei Malkiel takes a different stance; eating meat and fish together was not dangerous to life even in the time of the Gemara but it was unhealthy, and since the Shulchan Aruch writes that even nowadays one should be castreful not to eat meat cooked with fish. we have to follow this.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

1) The Rambam writes in his commentary on the Mishnah (end of Nega'im) that the purification of the Metzora, which took place at the time of the removal of the Nega and was done with the 2 birds, the cedar wood, and the hyssop, applies both in the time of the Beis ha'Mikdash and after the destruction; both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. He writes that there is no connection between Metzora and Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the Metzora can become Tahor, and he merely is lacking the Korbanos necessary for him to receive his atonement. The Rambam compares this to a woman who gives birth nowadays. When the necessary number of days after the birth have passed, she becomes Tahor, but now that we have no Beis ha'Mikdash, she lacks the Kaparah.

2) The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 153:5) writes that according to the above Rambam, that the process of purification of the Metzora applies in Chutz la'Aretz, it appears that the Mitzvah for the Kohen to examine the Nega and proclaim that it is Tahor is an obligation nowadays also. It seems that if the Kohen knows the Halachos, he is perfectly qualified to say that the Nega is Tahor.

3) I can conjecture that the reason why the spiritual Tzara'as was given the same name as the natural disease is as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Tum'as Tzara'as 16:10. He writes that the name "Tzara'as" is a term used to cover many phenomena which are not alike. He writes that when the skin turns white, this is called "Tzara'as," and when some of the hair of the head or beard falls off, etc., this is also called "Tzara'as." The Rambam there seems to be referring to the supernatural Tzara'as, but I suggest that the natural disease was also given the same name because it did bear a certain similarity, at least superficially, to the spiritual disease.

Bs'd I will comment on fish and meat in my next reply.

Kol Tuv,

Dovid Bloom

Back to meat and fish.

1) The Chasam Sofer does not actually say that the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah forbade meat and fish cooked together but he says that we learn in Pesachim 76b that Mar bar Rav Ashi (who was at the very end of the Talmudic period) prohibited it. I suggest that CS learns that since Gemara Berachos 44b does not state that spleen is forbidden, but merely that it is "difficult" for the entrails, this implies it is merely health advice. In contrast Pesachim 76b states that Mar bar Rav Ashi said that meat and fish cooked together are "asur".

2) The Rambam Hilchos Milah 2:2 writes that the reason one must do Metsitsa is so that the blood should leave the distant parts so that the baby should not be in danger. I suggest that if Chazal would have given us anecdotal cases of what happens if one does not perform metsitsa, one might have learnt from this that only in the circumstances present in the case mentioned by the Gemara it is necessary, whereas in fact metsitsa is something which should always be done. In fact the Gemara is so clear about the danger involved if metsitsa is not done, that it states (Shabbos 133b) that one must break Shabbos in order to do metsitsa.

3) I might refer you, David, to a study by Dr Mordecai Halpren, cited in Nishmat Avraham, by Professor Avraham Sofer Avraham, Yoreh Deah #264:7:7 (page 353) about the medical importance of metsitsa. He explains how metsitsa is essential for the proper blood supply to the penis and how it prevents infection in the crown.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom