Hilchos Lishah: Me'at Me'at, Kali, and Mixing Food on Shabbos

Topics

• Introduction: Practical Questions in Hilchos Lishah
• Avocado and Egg: What Actually Constitutes Lishah?
• Risuk Versus Lishah: The Core Distinction
• Tahini, Kali, and the Heter of Me'at Me'at
• Does Derech Achilah Permit Adding Sauce to Food?
• What Does Me'at Me'at Mean in Practice?
• The Mishnah Berurah's Me'at Me'at: How Much and What Kind of Change?
• The Biur Halachah: Me'at Me'at, K'l'achar Yad, and Tikun Ochel
• A Third Possibility: Is Lishah Different B'Shaas Achilah?
• Chewing Is Eating, Not the Melachah of Lishah
• Tit, Spittle, and Adding Liquid to Earth

Transcript

## Introduction: Practical Questions in Hilchos Lishah

Before we begin the main sugya, I want to discuss a few practical points that the Acharonim raise. Think about mixing sugar with cocoa or coffee. Both are dry substances—*yavesh b'yavesh*. Ordinarily we do not call that *lishah*, kneading. But suppose the spoon is slightly wet. Does that change the halachah? Do the Acharonim discuss it?

Can someone bring me Rav Kohn's sefer? I want to look it up. I am not presenting this as an obvious ruling. Sometimes a *shaylah* feels elementary, and perhaps all the poskim discuss it; I don't know. But it deserves attention.

If you put a small amount of water into the powder first, you may produce a thick, cohesive mixture before you have enough liquid to dissolve it. That raises a question of *lash*. So with coffee and sugar, would the proper order be to put the dry ingredients into the cup first and then add the water? If you pour in a large amount of water immediately, you are making a drink. If you add water slowly, little by little, and the mixture becomes a thick sludge in the middle of the process, that is a very different question.

Someone mentions the Chazon Ish's reasoning. But remember the distinction: if the mixture temporarily becomes a dough-like mass, why would a small addition of water not be a problem? We need to understand the *svara*, not just repeat the result. And apart from *lishah*, one must consider the separate *kli rishon* and *kli sheini* questions when dealing with hot water.

What about adding liquid flavors to coffee, or using a damp spoon? Does the little bit of liquid bind the particles together? What happens in practice?

I once asked Rav Scheinberg about cocoa. Even when you stir it into water, not everything immediately dissolves. Sometimes the cocoa forms clumps. Why should there not be a problem of *lishah* with those clumps? Rav Scheinberg treated it as a good question, and I still do not claim to have an easy resolution. With coffee, perhaps what remains on the surface is merely individual particles; cocoa can actually clump together. That distinction may matter.

There is a short exchange with the *olam* about the way they make their coffee. Someone says he pours the coffee onto his water; someone else observes that the powder can remain floating on top. We are trying to distinguish loose particles from pieces actually joining into a mass.

[Several listeners then speak at once. The transcription briefly moves into another conversation about evolution, children's books, and what guidance to seek from knowledgeable rabbanim. The exact words and people referred to are not consistently intelligible.] I say I want to find out what the accepted *mahalach* is. Someone mentions children seeing scientific books and programs, and a question that an *adam gadol* had asked about materials in his home. I may ask Rav Shmuel about it. Then we return to the coffee: the clumping question is really about cocoa rather than merely floating granules.

I make a little joke about what the children drink at home—they seem able to prepare it themselves for breakfast, lunch, and supper! There was a time we prepared everything for them; now they can manage some of it on their own. I put milk and all sorts of things into mine.

Now another *shaylah*. In Eretz Yisrael I remember people making avocado mixed with egg, without mayonnaise. They mash it together. Does that create a concern of *lash*? I don't see that particular mixture here so often, but it was common there. Let's think through it.

## Avocado and Egg: What Actually Constitutes Lishah?

What would be the *heter* for mashing avocado with egg? Somebody suggests the Chazon Ish. But does that heter apply when you are mixing two different foods, not merely crushing a fruit in its own juices? Somebody who missed yesterday's learning should hear the *svara* again. Go ahead, tell it over.

There are related discussions about previously cooked foods and about making a *shinui*, changing the normal order of adding ingredients and the way one mixes. But do not assume that two *shinuyim* are a magic answer to every *shaylah*. Some authorities have a different approach to *lash* in these cases. Rav Moshe was concerned in contexts that others permitted; the exact distinctions require learning inside.

I remember my wife asking a practical question about preparing eggs on Shabbos. Someone suggested putting in the mayonnaise first, instead of the eggs, and then changing the way it is mixed. But what is the actual halachic reasoning? Does it depend on whether the mixture is *blilah rakah* or a thicker mass? Would the result change if the eggs were cut into larger pieces? What if mayonnaise does not have the same halachic status as an ordinary liquid?

I want to make a general *ha'arah* here, and don't misunderstand me. It isn't politics. I am troubled when complex halachic *shaylos* receive an answer in two seconds, as though saying 'make two *shinuyim*' settles every possible difficulty. I know something about these sugyos, and even I cannot always answer instantly. I have to stop and think.

There are exceptional people who can. Rav Moshe Feinstein, zichrono livrachah, had that kind of command of the sugyos. Rav Belsky also has an extraordinary ability to recall the relevant Gemaros and poskim immediately. A rav who has answered a familiar question a thousand times may know exactly where to open the Mishnah Berurah and check it. He isn't guessing; he has lived with the material.

But most people, even learned people, should sometimes say: 'Let me think about that. Let me open the sefer.' What is wrong with admitting you need a little time? A rav in earlier generations might sit, learn the sugya through again, and write a teshuvah before issuing a psak. How could everything be resolved by routinely telling people to make ten *shinuyim* because one is afraid to decide what the halachah actually says?

Don't quote me as making a statement about particular people. I am telling you about a concern in the *derech* of answering *shaylos*. If someone takes the call, puts the questioner on hold, and asks a greater rav, I think that is a wonderful sign of *yiras Shamayim*. The honesty is what matters.

Now back to our specific case. With avocado and egg, maybe the avocado is simply being mashed in its own natural moisture, as the Chazon Ish discusses regarding *risuk peiros*. Maybe mayonnaise is not a conventional *nozel* for these purposes. But there is a different position attributed to Rav Shlomo Zalman, that when one substance causes separate elements to bind into a mixture, there can be a problem. If that is the underlying principle, we must analyze the case very carefully.

I'm not convinced that the general answers offered so far settle it. Let us return to the actual language of the poskim and work out what they mean.

## *Risuk* Versus *Lishah*: The Core Distinction

The approach attributed to Rav Shlomo Zalman goes very far. We will learn about it inside. There is a discussion, for example, of putting adhesive material on false teeth and inserting them into the mouth, or of using tape to attach separate pieces. Could that be considered *lishah* because the adhesive binds them together? Besides *tofer*, which is its own sugya, the question is whether the joining itself can create an issue of *lash*.

That is an astonishing *chiddush*. I don't want you to take it as a practical ruling from a passing reference; we have to study the specific words and cases. But it illustrates how broadly some understand the act of binding separate materials together.

Now let us go back to avocado and egg. The avocado is a soft fruit; when you mash it, its own juice or pulp helps it hold together. Does that mean no *lishah* is taking place? Someone recalls the Chazon Ish's *heter* regarding crushed fruit. I am not fully convinced that you can apply it automatically to adding egg. Once two substances are being joined, the analysis may change.

Think of crushed pineapple or another juicy fruit. When it is crushed, the pieces naturally stick together in their own moisture. The Chazon Ish discusses *risuk peiros*, crushing fruit that becomes joined by its own juice. What is his *svara*?

One possible explanation is that one's own fruit juice cannot create *lash*. But I do not think that captures the real distinction. My understanding is that the *ma'aseh* here is **risuk**, crushing, rather than a separate act of **lishah**, kneading. When you crush a fruit and its juices are already within it, you have not added a liquid to bind dry particles together. You are performing an act of mashing.

Somebody asks: What if I squeeze out the juice separately and then pour it back in from a bottle? Would it remain the same? That is precisely why we must define the principle. Is the *heter* because the moisture originated in the fruit, or because the particular action is an act of *risuk* and not a *ma'aseh lash*? I favor the latter reading, but we need to see it inside.

Compare ordinary flour and water. With dough, you add an external liquid and use it as the medium that makes the flour particles adhere. Here, mashing avocado produces softness and moisture as part of the fruit itself. But adding egg raises a further question: is the avocado now serving as a binding material that joins the egg to it? Are we making a cohesive batter out of two separate foods?

We read language about fruit with abundant sap or juice—*sarafan merubeh*—and about elements being attached through their own crushing. If the juice simply flows out during mashing, that is even less like kneading. The significant point is not a formula that 'fruit juice can never be involved in *lishah*'; it is whether the activity has the character of *ma'aseh lishah* at all.

Do you see what I am saying? Do not start with a slogan. Learn whether the person is *merasek* or *lash*. That is the *lomdus* we need before answering the avocado-and-egg *shaylah*.

## Tahini, *Kali*, and the Heter of *Me'at Me'at*

Someone raises a question about *techinah*. Does it make a difference if the mixture becomes thicker or thinner? One person suggests that only making a thick mixture is prohibited; if you add water and thin it out, perhaps you are going the other way. But another opinion understands *lishah* in terms of *chibur*, the joining of particles. According to that reasoning, even if you produce a thinner mixture, you may still be binding substances together. We cannot simply say, 'It is becoming watery, therefore there is no *lash*.' Let's get the sefer and look at the language inside rather than guessing.

Now, we have to discuss the halachah *l'maaseh*. Open the Mishnah Berurah. We finished se'if katan nun yesterday, Baruch Hashem. Let's continue with the Mechaber in siman shin-chaf-alef, se'if yud-daled.

The Mechaber discusses *kemach kali*, flour that has already been roasted, and cautions against kneading a large amount because one might come to knead regular, unroasted flour. What exactly is *kali*? Think of a roasted grain product. What is its halachic status: *bar gibul* or *lav bar gibul*? Does kneading it constitute the Torah prohibition of *lishah*, or is the concern rabbinic?

The Mishnah Berurah brings a machlokes between the Rambam and other Rishonim. According to one approach, the material is not subject to ordinary *gibul* in the same way, and the issur in this case is only *derabbanan*. If so, the permission to do it *me'at me'at*, a little at a time, may be a special leniency because we are dealing with a rabbinic prohibition.

But the Mishnah Berurah then refers to those poskim who see this as a genuine *bar gibul* situation. Even so, he discusses the *heter* of *me'at me'at*. How can that be? Does that mean *me'at me'at* works even where an ordinary act would be *de'oraisa*?

No, don't jump too quickly. Maybe the *heter* is specific to *kali*, because this is *tikun ochlin*—preparing a food already in a state fit for eating—and is therefore treated as *derech achilah*. The Biur Halachah we learned yesterday develops that *svara*. That may make it fundamentally different from kneading regular flour into dough.

If you take ordinary flour that has not been roasted and prepare dough, I do not see that *me'at me'at* simply makes it permissible. The case of roasted grain is unusual. The food is already fit for eating, and a small amount of preparation resembles ordinary use of the food rather than the usual act of making dough.

So we have to distinguish two possible explanations. Is *me'at me'at* allowed because the underlying issur is only *derabbanan*? Or is it a special *heter* even according to a more stringent view of *gibul*, because of the circumstances of *kali* and *derech achilah*?

Now here is the practical question: how far can we apply that *heter*? Can it be used for other food preparations, or only this precise case? That is what we have to work out.

## Does *Derech Achilah* Permit Adding Sauce to Food?

Tell me, where does the Mishnah Berurah actually decide between these views? He describes the Rambam and says *afilu l'poskim*—even according to the poskim who take the other position. But does that tell us how he rules *l'maaseh*? I don't see an explicit *hachra'ah* from that language alone. You have to be careful before extending a *heter* to an entirely different food.

Suppose you want to put gravy on a prepared dish. Is that simply *derech achilah*, the way a person eats? What about pouring gravy onto mashed potatoes? There you have a soft, cohesive food, and adding sauce can make the mixture more joined. How do you treat that under *hilchos lash*?

Look inside the Biur Halachah. We spoke about this yesterday, but it was getting late for Maariv, and I wanted to come back to it. The discussion of *tikun ochlin* and *derech achilah* might be an argument for a *heter*—but only if we understand exactly what is being permitted.

Someone says Rav Shlomo Zalman relies on this reasoning. I want to read it. Open Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah, perek ches, se'if yud-tes. What is the precise case? Does he discuss gravy on mashed potatoes? Read slowly; I want to hear the words.

Mashed potatoes are an especially good example of the problem. Take a puree and add gravy. Depending on what happens physically, you may be bringing the components together even more. But if it is simply sauce poured onto a ready *tavshil*, perhaps it is regarded as an ordinary way of eating. We cannot make a blanket statement without studying the distinction.

Rice might be different. In my rice, every grain remains identifiable; they are not necessarily joined into one mass like a puree. If you add sauce to rice, the situation may not be the same as adding liquid to mashed potatoes. What matters is what the mixture becomes and the reasoning of the poskim.

Still, if Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah allows a particular case based on the Biur Halachah, does that prove we pasken according to the second approach? Is the permission based on *derech tavshil*? Or is there another explanation?

I have a stronger *kashya*. The Biur Halachah we are citing seems to permit preparation **me'at me'at**—little by little. But if someone is permitting a person to pour the sauce onto the entire dish at once, what happened to the *me'at me'at* requirement? Did he rely on a separate leniency? Is he quoting Rav Shlomo Zalman? Or have we misunderstood the case?

Don't tell me 'It is a heter' until we know *which* heter, under *which* conditions, and how the actual preparation is carried out. That is what is bothering me.

## What Does *Me'at Me'at* Mean in Practice?

I am not satisfied with the explanation we have so far. If the Biur Halachah's *heter* depends on *me'at me'at*, how does that help a person who wants to pour gravy over an entire plate of mashed potatoes? There must be a difference we are missing. Maybe the other sefer is invoking some broader principle, but I don't want to say so without checking.

Let's go back to the Mishnah Berurah. First of all, what exactly is *me'at me'at*? Is it simply a measurement—a little amount of food—or is there an entirely different *ma'aseh* involved? The Mishnah Berurah's following remarks raise the question of how this phrase is to be understood. Let me give you the background.

The Pri Megadim, in Mishbetzos Zahav, se'if katan yud-beis, describes a process in which one adds the water in one quantity but performs the actual mixing in small portions. Remember, we have been distinguishing two stages: the act of **adding the liquid** and the act of **gibul**, bringing the mixture together. These are not necessarily one and the same.

Under that explanation, you add the water to the material, then take a little of it into another vessel, mix that small portion, and continue with further portions. The exact number of vessels and their movement is being discussed in the recording—two or three keilim—and the *olam* is trying to picture the actual procedure.

Don't imagine that *me'at me'at* necessarily means casually pouring just a little gravy over an entire dish. It may mean that the **kneading or mixing itself** is broken up into small acts. You might take a small amount from a larger mixture, work with it separately, and then bring it back together for serving. We have to see precisely how the poskim describe this rather than inventing a procedure.

That makes *me'at me'at* much more than a quantity. It is a different way of performing the *ma'aseh*. And why should that help? The explanation under discussion is that where the problem is rabbinic, the *shinui* in the form of *gibul* may make a difference. Simply adding water and not stirring may have a different status; we discussed that already. Don't assume one principle covers every case.

We will still have to distinguish *blilah avah* from *blilah rakah*, a thick mixture from a thin one. Even if you understand *me'at me'at*, there are other conditions to analyze. We'll reach that at the end of se'if yud-daled.

Now look at the Chazon Ish, toward the end of the discussion beginning *dinim ha'olam*. He brings the position of the Ramban. On that approach, *me'at me'at* is understood differently: the liquid itself is added little by little. That can be an entirely different explanation of the permissive case.

You see why I keep insisting we learn inside? Two poskim can use the same words, *me'at me'at*, and mean different things—small portions during the mixing, or small amounts of water as it is introduced. Before deciding how to prepare anything on Shabbos, we have to know which position we are following and why.

## The Mishnah Berurah's *Me'at Me'at*: How Much and What Kind of Change?

On the Ramban's approach, a person may mix the material as needed, but introduce the liquid *yad al yad*, little by little. The Gemara's language about the customary manner of preparation has to be read carefully. At one point a word is misread as *b'meduchah*; no, the word is *b'merubah*—in a large quantity. Ordinarily one puts in much water and mixes in the usual manner. Here the procedure is altered.

But there is a fundamental difficulty. If kneading even part of the material is a Torah prohibition, how could doing it in small amounts be a *heter*? After all, *chatzi shiur*—less than the usual minimum measure—can still be forbidden *min haTorah*. What is the underlying *svara*?

The Nishmas Adam approaches *me'at me'at* as a *shinui*, something done *k'l'achar yad*, in an unusual manner. The Eglei Tal, on the other hand, discusses the measure of less than a *grogeres*. That almost sounds like the measured quantities we think about on Yom Kippur: a little, a little, a little. But is that really what the Gemara and poskim meant?

Now read the Mishnah Berurah carefully. This is what I love about the Mishnah Berurah. When you learn the sugya first, you see how much is contained in a few words. Every expression opens up another explanation. It is *moradik*.

He says *me'at me'at*. Does that mean a little water each time, as the Ramban suggests? Does it mean small quantities of mixing? Does it mean less than a particular *shiur*, such as a *grogeres*? Or does it refer to a *shinui* in the manner of preparation? We have to read the phrase in context.

And remember what we discussed earlier: perhaps the whole leniency here is because *kali* is not an ordinary *bar gibul*, so that the underlying prohibition is rabbinic. Or perhaps it is because the prepared, roasted grain is already a food, and the preparation is *tikun ochel*. Those are different explanations and may lead to different conclusions.

Read the Biur Halachah now, but *b'kitzur*, please. There is a long discussion, and we want to see the main *nekudos*.

I also want to say something about Rav Feld. He is a tremendous *lamdan* and has an unusually clear, straight approach to *psak halachah*. His mind reminds me, in a way, of Rav Dovid. I have great respect for the clarity of his analysis.

Now, Shabsai, take over for a minute. Say over the Biur Halachah. Let us see how he explains the *me'at me'at* and the difference between *kali* and other flour. We have reached the question of whether the normal act would be *de'oraisa* or *derabbanan*, and what precisely makes the altered act permissible.

## The Biur Halachah: *Me'at Me'at*, *K'l'achar Yad*, and *Tikun Ochel*

Go ahead, keep reading. There is a passage discussing the Nishmas Adam and whether simply reducing the amount counts as a real *shinui*. A piece of the recording is indistinct, but the issue is familiar: does preparing a small quantity by the ordinary method change the nature of the melachah? We cannot assume that it does.

The text discusses how *yad al yad* and *me'at me'at* should be understood, referring to the Gemara, Rashi, the Rambam, and other Rishonim. One reading takes the expression quite literally—preparing a little and not a lot. Another emphasizes that the performance is different from the ordinary weekday manner. Which is correct? Does the small amount itself matter, or is the phrase pointing to a *shinui*?

Then the Biur Halachah introduces another fascinating *mahalach*: perhaps the allowance is connected specifically with eating, *b'shaas achilah*.

This is a magnificent sugya. The Biur Halachah is extraordinarily rich. It brings the various possibilities together, and if you know the Gemara and the earlier poskim you see what he is doing behind every line.

There is an argument about whether *me'at* must mean less than a formal *shiur*. The Ohr Zarua's expression *yad al yad* may suggest something other than the technical term *pachos mik'shiur*. Perhaps even a *grogeres*, which is a relatively small food quantity, could be called *me'at*. The Nesiv Chaim is also cited in connection with permitting such a quantity. None of this should be treated as an independent ruling without checking the texts.

Now we reach the Taz's explanation. Because the grain had already been roasted or dried in the oven, it was already edible. So when a little water is put into it, even though the parts may adhere, that action can be viewed not as the standard *melachas lishah* but as *tikun ochel b'alma*—ordinary preparation of something already fit for eating. *Derech achilaso b'kach*: this is the way that food is normally used.

That is a completely different *svara*. We are not simply saying, 'Small amounts are permitted.' We are saying the act may be part of the normal way to eat this prepared food.

Now bring this back to *techinah*. Suppose your techinah is already made, very thick, and you add more water to thin it out. How do you describe that? Perhaps you are not creating the initial cohesive mixture but altering food that is already prepared. Does the same reasoning apply?

Someone mentions a practical question asked of Rav Forshheimer. Tell me the case again. As I understand it, he was being asked about adding water to a prepared mixture to make it thinner. My first instinct is that this resembles the *tikun ochel* principle we have been considering. But I don't want to claim this is definitely what the other posek was relying on. He may have had another *svara* entirely.

Now the Biur Halachah offers yet another possibility. Read the next words. This is where it becomes especially interesting.

## A Third Possibility: Is Lishah Different *B'Shaas Achilah*?

Stop, stop. This little Biur Halachah is loaded! We learned that there are ways in which *borer* is permitted *b'shaas achilah*. We discussed *tochen* in the context of eating as well. Now the question is: could there be a corresponding concept of **lash b'shaas achilah**?

The Eglei Tal discusses a view that extends the principle of eating-time preparation beyond this particular food. But do not assume the Mishnah Berurah agrees with such a broad extension. He may be using *b'shaas achilah* to explain only the special case of *kali* or *me'at me'at*. The question is whether the heter comes from the act being part of eating or from something uniquely different about the roasted grain.

Look at Mishnah Berurah, se'if katan samech-vav. Read the last words carefully. I think they show that there is **not** a general heter to do ordinary *lishah* simply because one is about to eat. If there is a leniency here, it must have a defined scope. We need to distinguish the opinions and not make them all say the same thing.

And here comes Rav Shlomo Zalman with a beautiful *chakirah*. Think about eating itself. You take food, break it into pieces with your teeth, and the saliva in your mouth joins the particles together. If you described that only in physical terms, it sounds like an act of *gibul*. Yet surely nobody says a person may not chew his food on Shabbos! Why not?

Because **eating itself** is not the same thing as carrying out a melachah as a separate preparatory act. But how far does that concept reach? There may be two levels.

One is actual *achilah*, when the food is already in the mouth and the person is eating. The other is preparation *samuch laseudah*, shortly before a meal. We have distinguished those levels in our discussions of *borer* and *tochen*. Are the same rules applicable to *lash*?

Someone says the act of selecting edible food while eating is already a different case in *borer*. Yes; that's exactly why we must avoid using loose analogies. The way one performs a melachah **during** eating may not be governed by the same principle as preparations made before eating.

Turn to Shemiras Shabbos K'hilchasah, perek ches, he'arah yud. Rav Shlomo Zalman goes through this carefully. Does he treat *samuch laseudah* as actual eating for *lishah*? Or does he maintain that the prohibition can still apply when the preparation is immediately before the meal?

Listen to the wording. He draws distinctions involving *tochen*, *borer*, and the Rashba's discussion, and he considers objections to extending the leniency to *lash*. Some of the quoted Hebrew in the recording is badly broken. I want the printed text checked here rather than pretending we heard every word perfectly.

What matters is the method. See how a posek separates cases that sound almost identical. There may be a heter for eating, a limited allowance close to eating for certain melachos, and no corresponding blanket allowance for *lishah*. Which is the actual *maskanah*? Continue reading.

## Chewing Is Eating, Not the Melachah of Lishah

Listen to Rav Shlomo Zalman's language: *Ki mah sheha'adam lash b'fiv lo kari klal b'shem lishah.* What a person does with the food **inside his mouth** is not called the melachah of kneading. It is called **eating**.

Now you see the distinction. There is no question that a person may chew and eat. But does that mean he may prepare a mixture before the food goes into his mouth? No. *Lishah* done before eating may still be forbidden, even if he plans to eat immediately. We must not equate *b'shaas achilah* with all preparations made *samuch laseudah*.

I would have proposed a slightly different distinction: perhaps the decisive line is the very act of putting the food into the mouth, as distinct from preparation for a meal some time before. But Rav Shlomo Zalman does not seem to build his analysis simply on that difference. He treats the act **in the mouth** as *achilah* by definition, while work done beforehand requires its own analysis.

This is like what we discussed by *borer*. When a person actually eats the food and separates what is edible in the course of eating, the circumstances are different from preparing and sorting food for later. But precisely what applies from *borer* to *tochen*, and from *tochen* to *lash*, is a *chakirah*. The melachos are not interchangeable.

Now he develops a deeper point about the *geder* of *lishah* itself. What kind of activity was the melachah in the Mishkan? Is its essence the making of a dough-like mass as part of preparing materials for baking or something else? And how does that compare with mixing something like baby cereal, which is made simply in order to eat? There are distinctions here between the ordinary creative act of a melachah and routine preparation of food as food.

I want you to see how Rav Shlomo Zalman learns this. He does not just recite a rule. He goes back to the character of the melachah, the purpose of the mixing, and whether the act is considered *derech achilah*.

So is *me'at me'at* a numerical *shiur*? Not necessarily. In one explanation it expresses a normal way of preparing a small amount of food for immediate use rather than producing a large mixture. In another explanation it may be a *shinui*, and in another it may reflect a more limited rabbinic case. Don't mix those explanations together.

Someone keeps using an inaccurate pronunciation of *kali*, and I joke: 'Not Kelly—*kali*! Every time you say Kelly it sounds like a root canal in my ear!' But behind the joke is an important point. The status of **kali**, roasted grain, matters here. The question is not an ordinary case of flour and water.

Look at how many Acharonim are asking not only whether the act is forbidden, but **why** it has that status. Rav Shlomo Zalman's analysis differs from a simple understanding of the other *heterim*.

We must move on—we're running out of time. The Mishnah Berurah continues with a discussion of *tit*, mud, and *mei raglayim*. There is also a question about spitting in the street on Shabbos. Does liquid falling on earth create a problem of *nesinas mayim* even without later mixing? We already learned that introducing liquid can raise its own issue before any *gibul*. Let's read that next.

And yes, I'm tired today. I'm trying to keep everyone awake, including myself! Someone jokes that we both wake up at the same time. Fine. Let's get on with the sugya.

## *Tit*, Spittle, and Adding Liquid to Earth

I try to arrange the shiur so that everyone gets a portion of the sugya, no matter which day he comes. So let's continue. At the bottom of the Mishnah Berurah, after the discussion of *tit* and *mei raglayim*, he mentions *kli sherokeik bo*, a vessel into which a person spits. Find that line.

[There is a brief interruption about the schedule of a nearby Maariv minyan, whether it meets every night or only Monday night, and who is davening.]

All right, we have to finish soon, but let's read the point. Can a person spit onto earth in the street on Shabbos? How does that relate to *gibul*?

Someone tries to answer. Wait. We are speaking about more than one issue. First is the actual act of kneading. Second is the **placing of liquid** onto earth or mud, even when a person does not subsequently work it into a mixture. Earlier we learned that *nesinas mayim* itself may matter. Which of those concerns applies to the Mishnah Berurah's case?

Go ahead; I want you to explain the line inside. If it is forbidden to pour water onto earth, does saliva raise the same problem? Someone suggests directing it onto clothing instead. Don't treat that as a practical psak from this conversation; we have not reached a verified conclusion.

Now I really have to stop. We will be *mamshich* tomorrow, be'ezras Hashem.

[There is friendly conversation with the talmidim as the shiur breaks up.] I say how happy we are that people come to learn, even if they missed an earlier day or Shabbos. Someone compliments a davening. I joke about my own attempt when I was asked to daven: 'I did a lousy job—don't ask me again!'

That is where the substantive shiur ends in the intelligible portion of the transcription.