Siman 89

The Tur wrote: If one ate meat, it makes no difference if it is domestic animal, wild animal, or fowl, he may not eat cheese after it until he waits the amount of time from the morning meal until the evening meal, which is six hours [complete hours, which is a quarter of a twenty-four hour period]. And even if he waited the required amount, if there is meat between the teeth he must remove it, and within the time period even if there is no meat between the teeth it is forbidden, because the meat produces fat and draws out flavor for a long time. According to this reason, if he did not eat it but only chewed it for a child, he does not need to wait, for since he did not eat it, it does not produce flavor. The Rambam gave the reason for waiting because of the meat between the teeth, and according to his words, after he has waited the required amount, it is permitted even if meat remains between the teeth, and one who chews for a child must wait. It is good to hold by the stringencies of both reasons. Thus far his words.

And regarding that which the Tur wrote, that according to the Rambam after six hours it is permitted even if there is meat between the teeth, for they too are considered as digested, there is one who disagrees, for it is an explicit verse (Numbers 11:33) "the meat was still between their teeth," and in the Gemara (Chullin 105a) they learned from this that meat between the teeth is considered meat [Pri Chadash, subsection 2]. However, in truth, it is proven from Psalms that this verse refers only to within six hours, for it is written (Psalms 78:30) "They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths," which implies that the meat was not yet digested. And so it is explicitly stated in the Sifrei on Behaalotecha, and this is its wording: One might think that just as they gathered much of it, so they ate much of it; the Torah says "the meat was still between their teeth," as soon as he would put it into his mouth, he did not manage to cut it with his teeth before his soul departed, as it is said "They were not yet estranged from their craving, their food was still in their mouths." Thus far its words. Behold, this measure of "meat still between their teeth" is adjacent to the eating, and it is obvious that it does not refer to after six hours [Kereti U-Peleti]. And even according to the first opinion, he does not derive from the verse that meat between the teeth is called meat even after six hours, but rather he derives from the verse that meat between the teeth is called meat, and consequently he holds that even after six hours it is so, for before six hours there is no need for the meat between the teeth, since the taste still lingers, and according to the Rambam the derivation is specifically regarding before six hours.

And behold, according to what has been explained, according to the first opinion one must pick the meat from between the teeth even after six hours, and according to the Rambam one does not need to pick it afterwards, and before six hours picking does not avail according to the Rambam. And this is the essence of the question in the Gemara there, "meat between the teeth, what is the law?" Meaning, does picking avail for this meat within six hours? And he answered him, since the Torah called it meat, picking does not avail, for even after the picking it is called meat [Bach]. For it is impossible to say that the question was whether it is called meat at all, for according to the Rambam the essence of the prohibition is only because of this, and what kind of question is that [ibid.]? Rather, it is certainly as we have said, and the reason is lest he not pick it well [ibid.].

And it is true that some of the commentators on the Tur wrote so, but this is a great difficulty, for why should nikur not be effective, and why should one fear that perhaps he will not perform nikur well? Furthermore, from the wording of the Rambam himself it does not imply so, for he wrote at the end of chapter 9: This is his wording: One who ate meat etc. shall not eat milk after it until there is between them the duration of a meal, and that is like six hours, because of the meat between the teeth which is not removed by rinsing. Thus far his words. And if it should enter your mind that even with nikur it is not removed, he should have said that it is not removed by rinsing nor by nikur; rather, certainly with nikur it is removed. And that which they asked in the Gemara, "meat between the teeth, what is it?" it seems to me that the Rambam would explain that he asked as a wonder, meaning: since the primary prohibition is because of the meat in the teeth, regarding this they asked "what is it?"—meaning, what significance does it have that because of it we must wait six hours? And this is like saying "what is it," meaning, what is its significance? And he answered him from the verse, "the meat was yet between their teeth," for the Torah called it meat. However, for the halacha it makes no difference at all, for we hold according to the first opinion which is the opinion of Rashi and Tosafot and most of the poskim, and only as a stringency do we hold like the Rambam, regarding the matter of one who chewed for a child, that he must also wait six hours because of the meat between the teeth. And according to what we have explained, if he performed nikur on the meat between the teeth, he does not need to wait six hours even according to the opinion of the Rambam in the case of chewing for a child. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1: One who ate meat, even of a wild animal or fowl, shall not eat cheese after it until he waits six hours. And even if he waited the required duration, if there is meat between the teeth he must remove it, and one who chews for a child must wait. Thus far his words. And it can be said that his intention is also when he did not perform nikur on the teeth, even though from the plain meaning of his wording it does not imply so, and it requires further study. And know that the waiting of six hours is from the end of the meat meal until the beginning of the milk meal, even if at the time of the beginning of the meal he will not eat milk, or if at the end of the meat meal he did not eat meat, because in the Gemara they were particular from meal to meal, see there.

And after six hours, when one finds meat between the teeth, he shall pick them out, and he does not need to wait at all from the time of the picking. Nevertheless, it is certainly necessary to perform kinuaḥ and hadaḥah, which is to say, to cleanse his mouth by means of a small amount of bread that he eats, and to rinse it with water; for how could he eat milk after a mouth that contains meat and only a moment ago he removed it? And it is no less than meat after milk, which requires kinuaḥ and hadaḥah, as will be explained with the help of Heaven.

And behold, the waiting of six hours is not explicitly stated in the Gemara, for in the Gemara (Chullin 105a) it only says that one must wait from meal to meal, and the Rambam and the Rashba and the Rosh and the Tur explain that "from meal to meal" is six hours, but the Tosafot and the Mordechai in the name of the Ra'avyah and the Hagahot Ashri explain it according to its plain meaning, from one meal to another meal, and if he cleared the table and recited Birkat HaMazon, it is permitted to eat dairy. And there are those who wrote that a waiting of one hour is required, and it is one twenty-fourth of a twenty-four hour period, but without Birkat HaMazon it does not avail even if it extends for quite some time.

And this is what our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1 (Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 89), and this is his wording: And there are those who say that one does not need to wait six hours, but rather immediately, if one removed [the food] and recited Birkat HaMazon, it is permitted by means of kinauch and hadacha. And the custom is widespread in these lands to wait one hour after eating meat, and then eat cheese; however, they must also recite Birkat HaMazon after the meat, for then it is like another meal, which is permitted according to the words of those who are lenient, but without Birkat HaMazon, waiting an hour [and even six hours] does not avail. And there is no difference whether one waited the hour before Birkat HaMazon or after it. And if one found meat between his teeth after the hour, he must pick it and remove it. And there are those who say that one should not recite Birkat HaMazon for the purpose of eating cheese, but people are not careful in this. And there are those who are scrupulous to wait six hours after eating meat for cheese, and so it is proper to do. Thus far his words. And so is the widespread custom in all the dispersions of Israel to wait six hours, and Heaven forbid to change it, and regarding this it is said (Ecclesiastes 10:8), "He who breaks a fence" etc. And it appears to me that for a person who is not healthy, whom the doctors commanded to drink milk, he may rely on this opinion by waiting one hour and with the rinsing of his mouth, even if there is no danger in it; and similarly, a boy or girl who are weak and their cure is to drink milk, it is sufficient for them to wait one hour.

If one ate cheese, it is permitted to eat meat immediately after it, provided that he examines his hands so that no remnant of the cheese is stuck to them. If it is at night, such that he cannot examine his hands well, he must wash them. If he has a good light burning, night is like day because he can examine his hands. Likewise, if he did not eat with his hands but rather with a spoon or a shovel or a fork, he does not need to wash his hands [Pri Chadash]. And when he needs to wash his hands, they wrote in the name of the Ra'avad, of blessed memory, that all the laws that apply to mayim acharonim apply to these waters. There are those who hesitated regarding this and hold that one only needs to be careful with these waters not to wash them with something that does not clean the hands, and likewise he must lower his hands downward, and likewise he must wash until the second joint [see Shach, and Pri Chadash subsection 10]. However, the other laws of mayim acharonim, such as not washing them upon the ground, do not apply to these waters, and likewise anything similar to this.

And this is regarding the hands, but his mouth must be rinsed and wiped, and the wiping is that he should chew bread and wipe his mouth well; and it is not specifically bread, for the same law applies to any food item with which he can wipe, except for flour, dates, and vegetables, because they stick to the gums and the mouth is not wiped well, and afterwards he should rinse his mouth with water, or with wine, or with other liquids, and the same law applies that he can perform the rinsing first and afterwards the wiping. And there is reason to doubt if rinsing and wiping simultaneously is effective, such as if he thoroughly soaks bread in liquids and eats the bread, for there is in this wiping and rinsing. And it appears that when much liquid is absorbed in the bread, he can fulfill his obligation for both with this. And all this is according to the law, but in the Zohar Mishpatim (Zohar 125a) it was very stringent not to eat milk and afterwards meat in one meal, but rather when he wants to eat meat he should interrupt with birkat hamazon and wait an hour. And there are those who are meticulous who are careful in this, but the majority are not careful in this. And some say that according to the Zohar, even with poultry meat after cheese one should be stringent as with the meat of cattle [Beit Yosef Orach Chaim siman 173], and some say that the Zohar was only stringent with the meat of cattle and not with poultry [Pri Chadash subsection 15], and so it appears from the wording of the Zohar, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote at the end of section 2 that this requirement of washing, wiping, and rinsing for meat after cheese applies to the meat of domestic and wild animals; for even though wild animal meat is prohibited by rabbinic law, nevertheless, since its meat is similar to that of domestic animals and contains fatness that adheres to the hands and the palate, they were stringent with it like a domestic animal. However, with poultry, when one comes to eat it after cheese, nothing is required—neither washing nor wiping. Furthermore, according to the Zohar, some say that one should not be stringent with poultry, as was written in the previous section.

But our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: And there are those who are stringent even regarding meat after cheese [meaning, to wait six hours]. And such is the custom, that whenever the cheese is hard, one does not eat even poultry after it, just as with cheese after meat. And there are those who are lenient, and one should not protest, provided that they perform kinuaḥ and hadaḥah and washing of the hands; however, it is good to be stringent. Thus far his words. And the Aḥaronim wrote that any cheese that is six months old is called hard, and likewise wormy cheeses called Wallachian cheese, or Swiss cheese, or Hollander cheese, which have much fattiness and the taste lingers for a long time, one must wait six hours; and many are not careful in this, as our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are those who are lenient. And there are those who wrote further that since this entire stringency is not found in the Gemara, and it is according to the Zohar, and there it is explained that one need not wait more than an hour [Shach, subsection 16]. And we have already written that according to the Zohar one should not eat them in one meal, and they should separate with birkat hamazon. And all this is regarding the lingering taste, but regarding cheese between the teeth, one must be stringent just as with meat between the teeth; and even though there is one who says that only regarding meat between the teeth did the verse reveal that it is called meat, but not cheese [Taz, subsection 4], nevertheless, Heaven forbid to do so, and many disagree with this [Pri Chadash and Pri Megadim], and what logic is there that what is between the teeth should not be called cheese? And regarding meat, a verse is needed for the matter of after six hours, as I wrote according to the opinion of most poskim, and therefore one certainly must pick the teeth of the cheese. And know that we see through the senses that simple cheeses made by householders, in them more remains between the teeth than in the wormy cheeses, because they are crumbly, and therefore they should be careful to pick them; and this is only with cheeses, but milk and butter do not remain between the teeth, as is understood.

Everything that has been explained applies to the meat itself and the cheese itself, but if one ate a cooked dish of meat—meaning that meat was cooked in it—and he did not eat the meat but only the cooked dish, it is permitted to eat a cooked dish of milk after it, and also the washing of hands between them is only optional, though some say that washing of hands is required according to the law. And all the more so when one ate a cooked dish of milk, that it is permitted to eat a cooked dish of meat without anything between them. However, if he comes to eat cheese itself after a cooked dish of meat, or meat itself after a cooked dish of milk, it is obligatory to wash his hands, but wiping and rinsing are not required; yet the fat of meat has the law of meat itself, and even the fat of poultry has the law of meat itself. And also regarding a cooked dish, some say that meat broth has the law of meat [Hagahot Maimoniyot], and some say that broth which is clear has the law of a cooked dish, but a thick cooked dish of meat has the law of meat (Taz, subsection 5, in the name of our teacher Yonah, chapter "Elu Devarim").

And from all these matters, our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 3 that it is now the custom to be stringent not to eat cheese after a meat cooked dish just as after meat itself, and one should not change or breach the fence. However, if there is no meat in the cooked dish, but it was only cooked in a meat pot, [even if it is from its day, and even if it is soiled with meat and there is not sixty against the soil], it is permitted to eat cheese after it and there is no custom to be stringent. And so we are accustomed to eat meat after a cooked dish that contains cheese or milk; however, one must wash his hands between them, even if he does not eat actual meat, but only a meat cooked dish after a cheese cooked dish if he touched them with his hands, [for the cooked dish adheres more to the hands than meat itself, and if he ate with a spoon or a fork, we have no concern regarding it]:

He further wrote that a waiter who serves during a meal and touches the food does not require netilah, for they only required netilah for those eating. Thus far his words. And they challenged him, for this was only stated regarding the netilah of hands with mayim rishonim, as is written in Orach Chaim siman 163, that the Sages of blessed memory only instituted netilah of hands for eating for one who eats and not for the waiter, see there; however, regarding mayim emtza'im, where the reason is due to the stickiness of the food on the hands, what is the difference to me between the one eating and what is the difference to me between the waiter? And if he merely handles it with his hands, he requires netilah [Shach subsection 21, and Peri Chadash]. But it appears to me that there is no challenge here, for behold, neither mayim rishonim nor mayim emtza'im involve a trace of a Torah prohibition, but rather they are entirely enactments of the Sages. Therefore, it is an a fortiori argument: if regarding mayim rishonim, which is more stringent—to the point that the Sages of blessed memory said at the beginning of Sotah that anyone who eats without netilah of hands is as if he ate impure bread—even so they were not stringent regarding a waiter, all the more so regarding mayim emtza'im, they did not decree for waiters but only for those eating. [And know that one who tastes a meat dish, certainly it is nothing, and he does not need to wait; nevertheless, kinuch and hadachah are required; so wrote the Peri Chadash subsection 18].

One who ate cheese and wishes to eat meat must remove from the table the remnants of bread that they ate with the cheese. And so it is stated in the Yerushalmi, chapter 6 of Pesachim: One who ate cheese and wishes to eat meat, must remove the crumbs. See there. And "chovetz" is cheese, and "kofar" is meat. And it is forbidden to eat cheese on a tablecloth upon which they ate meat, and likewise the reverse, for it is impossible that there would not be on the tablecloth several drops of meat or of milk; and when moist meat touches bread, it is forbidden to eat the bread with milk, and likewise the reverse. And it is a choice fulfillment of the mitzvah that when one ate cheese or milk and wishes to eat meat, that one should remove from the table the bread and all the foods that they ate with the milk along with the tablecloth, and spread another tablecloth, and another bread, and other vessels, and eat meat. And so is the simple custom in most of the dispersions of Israel.

It is a simple matter that it is forbidden to cut cheese, even cold, with a knife that is regularly used to cut meat. Furthermore, even the bread that one eats with the cheese is forbidden to be cut with a knife used to cut meat, because sometimes the fat of the meat is congealed upon the knives, and when one cuts the bread, it adheres to it [Beit Yosef]. Therefore, if one wipes the knife well [Taz subsection 6] it is permitted, and all the more so it is permitted by means of thrusting it into hard ground. And all this is regarding the bread, but not regarding the cheese itself, unless it was after the fact; but initially, to cut cheese with a meat knife is forbidden in any case. And the same law applies to the reverse: a milk knife to cut meat with it, or bread to eat with meat, the law is as has been explained regarding a meat knife to cut cheese with it, or bread to eat with milk. And all Israel have already adopted the custom to have two knives, one for meat and one for milk, and also the bread that they eat with meat they cut with a meat knife, and that of milk with a milk knife. And there are those among the scrupulous who have three knives: one for meat, one for milk, and one with which they cut bread, and they use it for neither meat nor milk, only to cut bread [Pri Chadash subsection 24]. And they are accustomed, in order not to confuse them, to make markings like notches on the milk one, and your mnemonic is "notches of milk" (I Samuel 17:18), and one should not deviate. However, one who has only one knife may cut bread for both of them, provided he is careful to wipe the knife very well [and see Bach and Shach subsection 22]. And small and large bowls in the house, those for meat are separate and those for milk are separate; they should be made of two types for recognition so that they are not confused, and similarly with spoons and forks, and so too with all vessels, or to make notches on those of milk, and so all Israel have practiced. And one who finds a notched knife in a street of Jews, it is certainly of milk [Pri Megadim], and so too with all vessels.

There is one who wishes to say that one may not perform hagalah on a meat vessel for use with milk or vice versa, for the reason that perhaps he will have only one vessel and will perform hagalah from meat to milk and from milk to meat and will come to err; but this is an excessive stringency, and we are not to decree decrees from our own minds. [And see Magen Avraham siman 509, subsection 11, who wrote also in the name of the Gaon of Pozna to permit]: