Siman 88

The sages taught in the Mishnah (Mishnah Chullin 8:1): "All meat is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the meat of fish and locusts, and it is forbidden to bring it up with cheese upon the table, etc.", and even the meat of poultry is forbidden to be brought up with cheese upon the table. And they explained in the Gemara (Chullin 104a) that even though poultry in milk is by rabbinic decree, we decree it because of animal meat; and even though cold with cold is permitted by the Torah, we decree lest one bring them up together in a boiling stew pot, see there. And even though it is a decree upon a decree, nevertheless, here it seemed appropriate to the sages to decree [Tosafot ibid.].

The reason they were more stringent regarding meat in milk than all other prohibitions is that we have not found that it is forbidden to eat on a table upon which nevelot and terefot are placed; because regarding meat in milk, each one individually is permitted and people do not distance themselves from them, therefore they were concerned [Ran, chapter Gid HaNasheh]. And similarly, regarding one who is forbidden by a vow from deriving benefit from his fellow, it is forbidden to eat with him from one bowl lest he take from his portion, as is written in siman 221; it is also like this reason, that because the matter is not forbidden in its own right but rather because of his vow, we fear perhaps he will come to eat from it [Shach, subsection 2]. And that which they are permitted to eat on one table, the reason is that since he vowed against benefit from him, they presumably hate one another, therefore they were not concerned about one table, for here too the prohibition is only when they know one another, as will be explained. And that which was explained in Orach Chaim siman 440, that on Pesach when a gentile comes with his chametz it is forbidden to bring it up onto the table while the Israelite is eating, even though the prohibition of chametz on Pesach is punishable by karet, nevertheless, since they do not distance themselves from it all year, and man lives by bread, they were concerned about this; but regarding other prohibitions, the sages were not concerned [ibid.]. And according to this, it is forbidden to bring up forbidden bread at the time that he eats, lest he eat from it [ibid.].

And know that the wording of the Rambam, of blessed memory, in chapter 9, law 20, is somewhat perplexing regarding this matter, as he wrote: "It is forbidden to bring poultry with cheese onto the table upon which one is eating, as a decree due to the habit of transgression, lest one eat this with that, even though poultry in milk is forbidden by the words of the scribes." Thus far his words. And similarly wrote the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch; see there. Yet in the Gemara they said that the concern is because of domestic animal meat, and that one might bring it up in a boiling pot [and the explanation of the Lechem Mishneh is almost unintelligible; see there]. And perhaps it is the way of the poskim to be concise, since in the final law there is no practical difference in this, and their intention is also thus: lest he come to eat this with that, and from this he will come to eat domestic animal meat with cheese, and that he will bring it up in a boiling pot [and this is the intention of the Taz in subsection 1, and he was concise in his words, and for naught did the Pri Megadim hesitate regarding him; see there and examine carefully].

However, in my humble opinion, our teachers have informed us of a great matter in this, and there is a practical halachic difference as will be explained with the help of Heaven. For behold, in the first mishnah of "Kol HaBasar" (Mishnah Chullin 8:1), we learned: that any type of meat is forbidden to be brought up with cheese onto the table, and regarding this they deliberated in the Gemara as we have written. But afterward we learned another mishnah (Mishnah Chullin 8:1): "Poultry is brought up with cheese onto the table but is not eaten, these are the words of Beit Shammai, and Beit Hillel say: It is neither brought up nor eaten," and we did not know what novelty there is in this mishnah. And it is true that our teachers, the authors of the Tosafot, wrote there (Chullin 104b) that this is like saying that this matter is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, and the view of Beit Shammai in the place of Beit Hillel is not a mishnah, and therefore this is not considered a "stam followed by a dispute," where the halacha would not follow the stam, see there. And it appears to me that the Rambam does not interpret it so, for if it were so, the Shas should have interpreted it so, as we find in several places that the Shas interpreted in this manner; rather, certainly in this mishnah there is another novelty.

And this is in the first Mishnah which included all types of meat together, where the Shas correctly explained that they decreed so that one would not come to a Torah prohibition, and without this they would not have decreed. But in this Mishnah, Beit Hillel came to say that they also prohibited poultry alone, and not because of the reason of animal meat and that it might be brought up in a stewpot, but rather that the sages distanced this due to the habit of transgression, even though it is a light rabbinic prohibition; for since it is a constant and common matter, they distanced it from the habit of transgression even in a light matter. And according to this, there is a practical halachic difference, and that is that even a cooked dish of meat alone is prohibited to bring up with a cooked dish of milk alone, for from the first Mishnah we only heard of actual meat and actual cheese, but since Beit Hillel were concerned not to become accustomed to transgression, even a light transgression, therefore any name of meat and name of milk is prohibited.

Furthermore, it appears to my humble opinion to be precise from the wording of the Mishnah, for in the first clause it said: "All meat is forbidden to be cooked in milk," and afterward it said "and it is forbidden to bring up with cheese, etc.," and why did the Tanna change from milk to cheese. Therefore, it appears to me that Rashi, of blessed memory, corrected this with his pure wording, as he wrote (Chullin 103b): "And it is forbidden to bring up lest one come to eat them together, for they touch and absorb from one another, etc." Thus far his words. And his intention is: that since cheese is a dry thing and is placed on the table without a bowl, and similarly the meat is placed on the table without a bowl, for the majority of their eating was fire-roasted, and the meat was dry, therefore if they are placed on one table they will touch each other and absorb from each other if they are hot, and they were concerned that they would come to eat them together. But milk, which is a liquid, and without a vessel it is impossible for it to be on the table—there is no concern in this since there is a vessel that separates, and it is like two tablecloths which will be explained is permitted. [And it appears more likely to me to say that what Rashi wrote "and they absorb from one another" is not exact, and his intention is not specifically when they are hot, but rather that from their fat there can be a small amount of absorption from one another, and perhaps his intention is to forbid even not at the time of eating, and it requires further study. And if we say as I wrote, if so, also regarding the two cooked foods that we wrote, it is only regarding a dry cooked food that is placed on the table without a vessel].

This which the sages forbade to bring them up onto one table, this is specifically regarding a table upon which they eat. However, on a table upon which one arranges the cooked dishes, such as a table of the kitchen—it is permitted to place this next to that. For on a table upon which they eat, since hands are occupied with them, they might come to place them one upon the other (Chullin 104b), or literally one next to the other. But on a table upon which they arrange, there is no such concern, for presumably they are not literally one next to the other, and certainly they are not one on top of the other.

This prohibition of bringing them up onto one table applies specifically to two people who know each other, who are not embarrassed by one another and each might eat from his fellow's food; and even if they are fastidious with one another, there is nevertheless a concern. And some say that they only prohibited this regarding brothers who are fastidious with one another, for ultimately they are brothers, but regarding other people who are fastidious, it is permitted [Yam Shel Shlomo]. The Acharonim decided in accordance with the first opinion [Shach and Taz, subsection 2], unless they had vowed against deriving benefit from one another, for then it is permitted, or if they are sitting so far from one another that if one were to stretch out his hand he would not reach the food of the other, for then it is also permitted [Bach]. And likewise when one eats alone—it is prohibited.

And even those who know one another, if they made any distinction between them, such as each one eating on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on one tablecloth and place bread between them as a distinction—it is permitted. And specifically when they do not eat from the bread placed between them as a distinction, but if they eat from it, even if only one eats from it—this is not a distinction, for in any event the bread from which one eats is placed on the table, and therefore another distinction is required, such as placing between them a vessel from which one drinks and whose manner is not to be on the table, for then it is a distinction even though they drink from the vessel. And although some say that if they drink from it, it is not a distinction in any case, nevertheless the great later authorities decided that if its manner is not always to be on the table—it is a distinction, and certainly if they placed there a lamp or other things whose manner is not to be on the table, it is a distinction. And therefore a lamp at night, whose manner is to be on the table, is not a distinction, unless they stood it in a place where its manner is not always to stand, for then it is also a distinction.

And there is a question regarding this, in that which we wrote that when they eat on one tablecloth they should place some object between them as a reminder, and how is it possible to eat meat and milk on one tablecloth, for they adhere to the tablecloth, and in truth all of Israel have practiced having specific tablecloths for meat and specific tablecloths for milk. However, this is specifically with a new tablecloth or one that was laundered, where this one eats at one end and that one eats at the other end, in a manner where there is no concern of adhering to the tablecloth [Magen Avraham siman 173]. And there is one who wrote that when one places a meat bowl on the table, and afterward places a milk pot in its place—it absorbs the taste of the meat and forbids it to the extent of a kelipeh [Bach]. But we do not hold accordingly, for absorption does not travel from vessel to vessel, as was written at the end of siman 92 [Magen Avraham ibid.]. Nevertheless, one certainly must be careful in this, for it is unavoidable that a little will not spill from the bowl or from the pot, and there is a complete concern in this. And the custom is already widespread that in every kitchen there is a specific bench for placing a meat pot, and a specific bench for placing a milk pot, and for every matter of milk and of meat there are specific vessels, and Israel are holy and are very stringent in this.

And so too one must be careful that one who eats meat and the other eats milk should not drink from one vessel, because the food sticks to the vessel, and therefore even if they are at two tables and they are two strangers—it is forbidden, unless at the time of drinking they wipe their lips well. And all the more so they should not eat from one loaf of bread, unless they are careful to cut with a clean knife, and they wipe their hands well at the time they cut the bread. And so too it is the custom to designate a salt vessel for meat by itself and for milk by itself, because sometimes they dip into the salt and remnants of food remain in the salt, and even if they take the salt with their hand there are remnants of food on them and they stick to the salt. And already all of Israel have the custom to have a salt vessel for meat alone and for milk alone, and one must not change, Heaven forbid. And know that there is one who wrote that one who ate meat should not sit within six hours next to one who eats milk, lest he forget and eat. And one should not pay attention to such a stringency, for if so, women who ate meat could not prepare milk foods for the needs of another meal, lest they forget and put it into their mouths. Rather, certainly there is no one who is concerned for this [and so wrote the Pri Megadim and the Yad Ephraim]. And further laws regarding the matters of a meal were explained in Orach Chaim siman 173 [and see there in the Beit Yosef who rejected the words of the Tur in what he brought in the words of "there are those who say" to distinguish between one expenditure and two expenditures, and see Turei Zahav subsection 3].