There are two words for "fat" in Hebrew:
- שׁוּמָן/subcutaneous fat, which is the fat just under the skin and is jiggly
- חֵלֶב/visceral fat, which is the fat around organs and is relatively firm
There is an interesting animal called the כוי/koy (yes... there is no translation) that is an animal that is on the spectrum (oh aren't I so woke!); somewhere between a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal. What about cooking the meat of a כוי with milk? Of course you can't eat it -- even if it is not a Torah prohibition, it is certainly prohibited by Chazal. However, what about benefiting from it? Selling it to a non-Jew, feeding animals, fertilizing your garden, making medicine from it, etc? Well, since we have an uncertainty about a Torah prohibition, we have to be stringent and forbid that also.
Ah; but what about if I want to cook חֵלֶב from a כוי in milk? That might be different! We have a rule in halacha of אין איסור חל על איסור/once something is prohibited, adding another reason to prohibit is ineffective. That is, unless there is something that one prohibition has that the other prohibition does not have, aka איסור מוסיף for those of you still keeping score. Now... eating חֵלֶב is a simple prohibition, whereas eating kosher meat cooked with milk also has a prohibition of benefit. What about חֵלֶב cooked with milk? That depends on whether the prohibition of benefit is tied to the permissibility of eating it without being cooked in milk. If the prohibition to benefit is tied to the permissibility to eating, the there is no extra prohibition in cooking חֵלֶב with milk and it would be permitted to benefit from the mixture. If, however, they are separate, then the prohibition of benefit would be added and so to benefit would also be prohibited. Add into the mix that the חֵלֶב of a כוי may be permitted and you have a super cool question! A question that could have very practical application in the preparation of medicines.
What is the answer? It is a halachic dispute (I know, shocking). But here the really interesting bit and (finally) the point I wanted to make (you were wondering if I wrote the wrong title, weren't you? Admit it.) Who are on the two sides? Among others, the Rambam and the Rambam's commentary on the mishna. That is not a typo. When we say "the Rambam", we mean משנה תורה. Which many times has differences from the Rambam's commentary on the mishna.
Now you can argue that the Rambam was quite young when he wrote his commentary on the mishna and that the Rambam's משנה תורה represents a more mature work. That is true, but people still quote and use as an authoritative source his commentary on the mishna. The person who wrote the Shulchan Aruch is the same person who wrote the Beis Yosef. They have differences of halachic significance. The same person wrote sefer Chafeitz Chaim and the Mishna Brura. They have differences of halachic significance. That is because the relationship between our sefarim and the sages who wrote them is more akin to son/father than book/author. If you see a p'sak in the Mishna Brura and know from eye witnesses that R' Yisroel Meir Kagan did something different. We follow the Mishna Brura, not the eyewitness report.
When we finish a masechta, we say the הדרן. I know it is long and you may not have paid close attention to every word, but included is "we think about you, masechta Ploni, and you (masechta Ploni) think about us." The masechta has an independent existence and personality. We also include a prayer that we should have the merit to learn and finish other masechta and s'farim; meaning that s'farim also have their own independent existence and personality.
I believe that is part of the incredible fun in learning! You are not just reading a text, you are actually building a relationship -- an eternal bond -- that connects us with our Creator, our King, our Father.
Comments