Q&A: Meat with Fish, and for Sephardim Fish with Milk
Meat with Fish, and for Sephardim Fish with Milk
Question
Hello Rabbi Michi,
Since the source for the prohibition against eating meat and fish is from “and you shall guard yourselves,” because there is a concern that this combination causes leprosy, and this eating prohibition appears in section 116 of the Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah (and that whole section is based on prohibitions for that reason), is there any point in continuing this prohibition today in light of the fact that I have never heard of such a concern anywhere in modern medicine? After all, that whole section basically says that whatever doctors say is harmful one should avoid doing, and whatever they say is not harmful is permitted (and that surely indicates a prohibition on cigarettes).
And regarding fish with milk, even the source among the Sephardim is unclear, since the Beit Yosef was the first to mention this matter, and the overwhelming majority of the commentators on the Shulchan Arukh explained that he meant fish with meat, and only Sephardic halakhic decisors continue this custom, even though some of them noted that there is no danger in it (although in Pachad Yitzchak it is written that it is well known that drinking milk after fish carries a great danger). Seemingly, this custom began at some point in Sephardic communities, and that is why they specifically explained the Beit Yosef’s intent literally. As for fish and milk, since I am Ashkenazi I do not follow this practice, and many times after tuna I drank a cup of milk and did not enter any danger. Is there not room to say that there is no prohibition here at all?
Answer
A few comments:
There are halakhic decisors who claim that these prohibitions do not depend on the assessment of medical experts. Perhaps they involve some hidden, segulah-type matter. I, humble as I am, tend to think that if there is no danger in it, there is no obligation to observe it. And even if the source of these prohibitions is in the Talmud, and seemingly we hold that something enacted by formal count requires another formal count to permit it, this is like a ruling made in error (the change stems from the assessment that the original ruling was mistaken from the outset, not that the situation changed, as with an enactment whose reason has lapsed).
Being strict about fish with milk is really absurd, because if there were danger in it, we would have to obligate Ashkenazim in it as well (seemingly, for them it would just be a lack of awareness of the danger, and that would not depend on custom). And it is already known that the source of this rule is in the Beit Yosef and has no real earlier source, so there it seems obvious to me that there is no need to be strict.
A general note: when we are talking about danger, there are different levels of danger. The fact that you did something and nothing happened to you proves nothing. It is like driving at 150 kph and not having an accident. Does that prove there is no danger in it? On the other hand, setting the threshold of danger is not a question entrusted to experts. Therefore, the fact that experts say cigarettes are dangerous does not necessarily mean there is a prohibition. Many halakhic decisors make this depend on the reasonable person (whether he is concerned or not). See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA/
Discussion on Answer
What do you mean, on the basis of something else? They interpret the danger that the Sages spoke about as a spiritual danger. That is not something else.
As for the bodies of people from Eastern communities, to this day I have not heard of findings in that direction, and I very much doubt there is anything to it.
What is meant by spiritual danger? Is it like those who eat “forbidden foods” becoming mentally corrupted, or something else…?
Something like that.
In the Talmud in Pesachim (76b) it is explained that the prohibition is either Because of the smell because of odor (bad breath) or For no other reason because of “something else,” and Rashi explains: leprosy. I did not find anyone who explains that the intention is spiritual danger (or perhaps you would explain it as spiritual leprosy?).
It is the same thing, because leprosy comes from the mouth because of evil speech. Indirectly it is the same thing.
Hello,
All the halakhic decisors write that it is prohibited because of leprosy (see Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De’ah sec. 116:3, and the Shakh, Taz, and the other commentaries there. And see there that they distinguished between cooking, which is dangerous, and roasting, which creates odor). See the discussion in Arukh HaShulchan sec. 116 about dangers in general, and there in subsection 10 about meat and fish.
Nowadays it is accepted that there is no danger in this, and therefore the conservatives split into two groups: 1. Those who think there is danger in it and medicine does not understand it (the assumption is that the Sages did not err in such matters). 2. Those who are more clear-eyed, but still conservative. These often attribute it to spiritual dangers (following the Vilna Gaon, who explained that the rule “when the reason lapses, the enactment does not lapse” is because there may be hidden reasons).
I do not see a reason to go searching for something I do not agree with. You can search the web yourself. I will only note that regarding leprosy itself, many have already written that it is an illness with spiritual causes. So on its face it is not far-fetched to claim that fish and meat are a spiritual danger that brings leprosy. And still, I do not think that is the intent.
So, as I understand it, the Rabbi also thinks there is no great need to be strict about this.
P.S. I think that here, even according to the conservatives of the more clear-eyed type, it should be permitted, just as uncovered water is permitted nowadays because the reason has lapsed (as explained there in the Shulchan Arukh), and the rule that when the reason lapses the enactment does not lapse does not apply here, as explained there in all the commentaries.
Rabbi, what about the lapsed reason of “the dead and greens” — has that too lapsed nowadays?
Indeed.
Moshe,
The words of the halakhic decisors were mentioned here, that in this case the rule “when the reason lapses, the enactment does not lapse” does not apply, because we are talking about danger, which is an assessment of reality. “The dead and greens” is a law, and therefore they did not write this about it.
Moreover, according to the knowledge we have today, the enactment was mistaken from the outset, since there was no danger in this even in their time. Apparently it is not that reality changed, but that there was a scientific-medical error. That is not the case with “the dead and greens.”
However, in my personal opinion there is certainly room to consider repeal even regarding the law of “the dead and greens,” but this is not the place to elaborate.
I always thought there was a problem in the past with leaving a corpse for two days, but nowadays there is no such problem because of refrigeration. (By the way, what do they do with someone who dies at home on Friday night? Does Jewish law permit taking him to the hospital and refrigerating him on the Sabbath?)
When you say the enactment was mistaken from the outset, are you talking about uncovered water? (Because from what I learned, the concern was that maybe a snake drank from it and some of its venom fell into the water.)
So what do we do with such a law? Why do we need to discuss it and not just repeal it immediately, whether it is a law or was void from the start…?
What is the scientific-medical mistake?
Do you think that ever since morgue refrigerators were invented they could have repealed the law of “the dead and greens”?
How would that affect things, and what would change if they repealed that law?
Uncovered water is a different story, because in their time there really were snakes and perhaps there was danger. That is not a mistake from the outset. But the danger in meat and fish apparently never existed.
As for “the dead and greens,” I wrote that it requires discussion. Simply speaking, it is a case of the reason lapsing, but there are situations in which when the reason lapses they do repeal the enactment. See the last chapter in Neria Gutel’s book, The Changing of Nature, for dozens of sources from the medieval authorities on this.
Is there a difference between an enactment and a law?
Who is supposed to discuss it? The halakhic decisors of the generation? Are you hinting that they will work out the implications and add their own reasoning and arrive at conclusions with appropriate laws?
So apparently some case happened where someone ate beef and fish and something happened to him… and they attributed it to what he ate. And maybe they were mistaken.
There is a difference between danger and law.
There is no formal institution that is supposed to discuss it. The sages of the generation are supposed to reach a conclusion.
Do we need to send them a letter or what?
If I violate something that was considered (or was not really considered…) a “danger” and nothing happens to me—have I sinned? (And if something does happen to me then… what is the moral/punitive difference?)
Cigarettes too are a real danger, so why are there Haredim who smoke? What are they violating?
By the way, there are forms of leprosy that are in the category of not rendering one impure; maybe that is what the author meant by “danger.”
And since in any case we are all impure from contact with the dead, then a leper is negligible, right? So it would seem on the face of it that even the law of danger does not apply to beef and fish.
Does impurity from the dead harm the soul? And does leprosy harm only the body? Right? So they need to discuss making a red heifer fit as well.
Hello Rabbi, thank you for the answer.
I did a bit of searching, and I do not recall finding anyone who prohibits meat and fish on the basis of anything else; I would be glad if the Rabbi could point me to such a source. (I did find regarding fish and milk that one of the Sephardic halakhic decisors—not from our own times—wrote that even though it did not seem to him that there was any concern of illness in the matter, since it came forth “from the mouth of the king, namely Maran,” one should be strict. And I wondered about that, because even if we say that “the king” indeed meant the prohibition of fish and milk, then his intention was to compare it to meat and fish, and there, as stated, I did not find anyone who prohibits it because of other considerations.)
As for the absurdity the Rabbi found in fish and milk, perhaps one could say that the bodies of people from Eastern communities react differently to fish and milk? And for us it indeed is not dangerous.
And thank you for the reference. Really, the question was based mainly not on “what happened in practice,” but on the fact that we do not find people in the world who are careful about this because of medical danger.