Mareh mekomos for shiur in Basar b'Chalav/ Taaroves from R. Aryeh Lebowitz at RIETS (2020-2021)

(1) To not eat meat with milk: To not eat meat with milk that has been cooked together, as it is stated (Exodus 34:26), “you shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” And this verse comes to forbid eating and deriving benefit (pleasure) from the meat with milk. And let it not be difficult to you — [that] if so, why is its prohibition not stated explicitly, as “you shall not eat,” and [instead] expressed with an expression of cooking. As the answer to this [is] because there is a novelty in the prohibition of its eating above the eating of the other prohibitions. As with other prohibitions, the liability is only if he enjoys his eating. But here even if he does not enjoy his eating, once he swallows it — and even if he swallows it hot and he burns his throat with it, and similar to it — he is lashed nonetheless. [It is] as they, may their memory be blessed, said in Pesachim 25a, “For this reason did [the Torah] not write, ‘eating’ in [the verse] itself: To say that one is lashed [even when consumed] not in the way of its enjoyment.” And nonetheless, we do not administer lashes for it unless it is by way of cooking (Chullin 108a), according to the language that the verse expressed its prohibition.

(2) And even though they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 115b) that that which the prohibition of cooking is written three times in the Torah is to teach the prohibition of eating, the prohibition of cooking and the prohibition of benefiting — it is only fit for us to count two [of them] in the tally of negative commandments; as the prohibition of eating and benefiting is one thing. [It is] like they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 115b), “Every place that it is stated, ‘You (singular) shall not eat,’ ‘You (plural) shall not eat,’ both the prohibition of eating and the prohibition of benefiting are implied.” As the Torah expresses all of the enjoyments more generally with an expression of eating, since it is a constant enjoyment for a person, and he needs it; and like the matter that is written (Exodus 24:11), “they beheld God, and they ate and drank” — that it calls enjoyment “eating.”

(3) And if you will grab me [and say], “If so, why are three prohibitions written?” As two suffice, according to what I have said. [Then] one can answer you that certainly if in [one] place it was written, “You shall not cook,” to teach about the prohibition of cooking and in another place, “You shall not eat,” which would include the prohibition of benefiting and the prohibition of eating, as we have said — it would have been correct not to write the third. As there would not be any need for it, since we would have already learned eating and benefiting from “You shall not eat” — from the principle in our hand, that included in eating is the implication about benefiting. But now that eating is not mentioned in any place, we would not have learned [about] benefiting without the third negative [statement]. And you should not ask further, “And why did the [Torah] not write, ‘You shall not eat’ in one of them and it would suffice with two?” As I have informed you that it was for a purpose that Scripture did not mention it with the expression of eating, as the liability for it is even if it is not in the way of its enjoyment. We have learned from here that the intention of that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 115b) “One is for the prohibition of eating, one is for the prohibition of benefiting and one is for the prohibition of cooking,” is not that the third verse be a [separate] negative commandment, but rather that we need to learn from it about benefiting. And blessed be [the One] Who chose their words.

(4) We have written (Sefer HaChinukh 92) what we could from the roots of the commandment from the angle of the simple meaning, in the prohibition of cooking in Parashat Eleh HaMishpatim.

(5) From the laws of the commandment: That which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 113a), that the prohibition of meat with milk from Torah writ is only with meat of a beast (domesticated animal) that is pure (kosher); but not from an impure beast, not from a [wild] animal — even a pure [one] — and not from a bird, whether pure or impure. And they relied for this upon that which it is written, “kid” three times in the Torah, which is an expression of exclusion, as it should have [otherwise] written, “meat.” And the explanation about this came (Chullin 113a), “‘A kid’ and not an impure beast, ‘a kid’ and not a [wild] animal, ‘a kid’ and not a bird.” And therefore, they, may their memory be blessed, said that it is permitted to cook these three with milk, and they are permitted in benefit. But they, may their memory be blessed, prohibited them in eating to make a fence for the meat of a beast, which is forbidden by Torah writ, so that people do not switch [one] meat for [another] meat. And hence since the thing is [plausible] that [one] meat will be switched with [another] meat, they were also stringent with this fence, exactly like they were with the meat of beast in some matters, such that they forbade that they be brought up [together] on a table at all. And according to the opinion of some commentators, they obligated about them that there be a pause between their eating and the eating of cheese, like with the main prohibition, which is the meat of a beast. But with the meat of fish and locusts, they did not make a fence with them at all, as their meat is not at all similar to the meat of a beast, and people will not come to err in this.

(6) And they were also stringent in this matter according to some of the commentators to [deduce] a novel prohibition in this, more than in other prohibitions of food (Chullin 108a). [It is] in that with the matter of meat with milk, if milk is mixed with meat, and there is not sixty parts in the piece of meat corresponding to the milk, we see both of them as one piece of prohibited food. And if this piece fell into a stew of meat or a stew of milk, we measure against all of [the piece]. And this is what, they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 108a) “The piece itself becomes a carcass.” And the reason is because their mixture is what makes them prohibited. And hence, after they have mixed, behold, they are like a piece of carcass. And with other prohibitions, it is not such; as [with] prohibited food that is mixed with a piece of permissible food and there is not sixty parts in the permissible food to negate the prohibited food, and afterwards they fall into a stew, we only measure according to the measurement of the prohibited food that fell into it, and [the permissible portion of the piece] itself helps to [count against] the prohibited food. [This is] because that piece does not become a carcass, and [so] the permissible food in it is found to be like the rest of the permissible food in the stew — and [so] it assists [in counting against] the prohibited food. However if it is recognizable, the piece itself is forbidden forever, according to the opinion of some of the commentators.

(7) And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Temurah 33a) that the ashes of meat [that was cooked together] with milk is prohibited; like the ashes of all things that are prohibited to benefit from, which require burial. And they also said (Chullin 111b) that the Torah only prohibited meat with milk, regarding the milk of a living beast. But with the milk of a dead [one], it is not prohibited. And therefore the udder is permitted [to be eaten] with its milk, according to Torah writ. However the Sages forbade it as a fence, until one removes its milk from it, as is elucidated in its place (Chullin 109b). And there are two dispensations for milk that is found in the stomach [of an animal]: one, that it is included in [the category of] the milk of a dead [one]; and also since it is only like refuse more generally — as it has already been digested there. And therefore it is permissible from the outset. And it is not necessary to say that that which is found coagulated there is permissible — as it is certainly like refuse — but even that which is liquid was permitted by the Geonim. One who cooks an embryo in milk is liable, and so [too,] one who eats it. But one who cooks a placenta or skin or tendons or bones or the roots of the horns or hoof nails is exempted. [These] and the rest of the commandment’s details are elucidated in the eighth chapter of Chullin.

(8) And [it] is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and volitionally eats a kazayit from the meat with milk that has been cooked together is lashed. But if he benefited from it — for example, [if] he gave it or sold it — he is not lashed, since it is possible to [derive] benefit without an act. And we do not administer lashes for anything that does not have an act [involved] with it. And it is possible that he is not lashed even if he rubs with it — since it is not in the way of its enjoyment, as it is not made for rubbing. But there is also an argument about it [to say] that he is lashed.

(3) The law only applies with meat from a pure [kosher] animal and milk from a pure animal, but meat of a pure animal in milk that is impure, or meat from an impure animal in pure milk, is permitted to cook and benefit from. Meat of a wild animal and of fowl, even in milk which is pure, is permitted to cook and benefit from; and even eating is only prohibited rabbinically. Fish and grasshoppers are not prohibited [with milk] even rabbinically. RAMA: We make milk from almonds and place bird meat in it, since [milk and bird meat] is only rabbinically [forbidden]. But with meat from a domesticated animal, place almonds next to the milk, so that people don't misunderstand. This is as we said above, in chapter 66.

(4) Similarly, the meat of a wild beast and the meat of a fowl together with the milk of a wild beast or the milk of a domesticated animal is not forbidden according to Scriptural Law.14There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis in Chullin 116a whether the prohibition against eat the meat of a wild beast [cooked] in milk is Scriptural or Rabbinic in origin. According to some interpretations, that difference of opinion is perpetuated among the Rishonim (see Siftei Cohen 87:4). Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of Rishonim and Achronim follow the opinion the Rambam states here. This is also the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 87:3).
Significantly, in (Hilchot Mamrim 2:9), the Rambam states that the meat of a wild beast that is cooked in milk is forbidden according to Scriptural Law. In their glosses to Hilchot Mamrim, the Radbaz and the Kessef Mishneh explain that there, the Rambam is speaking theoretically: Were the halachah to follow the opinion that the meat of a wild beast is forbidden according to Scriptural law, the ruling would be such and such. The Merkevat HaMishneh, however, maintains that a printing error crept into the text in Hilchot Ma'achalot Assurot and the text should be changed to fit the Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Mamrim. Therefore it is permitted to cook it and it is permitted to benefit from it. It is forbidden to partake of it according to Rabbinic Law so that people at large will not be negligent and come to violate the Scriptural prohibition against milk and meat and partake of the meat of a kosher domesticated animal [cooked] in the milk of a kosher domesticated animal. For the literal meaning of the verse implies only the meat of a kid in the milk of its actual mother.15Hence were the Sages to allow one to partake of the meat of a wild beast and fowl cooked in milk, one might think that the prohibition applies only in its most literal context. As a safeguard to prevent this error from occurring, they instituted this prohibition. Therefore, they forbade all meat in milk.

(1) "But meat of a pure animal in milk that is impure etc." The Tur says, 'but pure meat (of a kosher animal) in impure milk (milk from a non-kosher animal) or impure meat in pure milk, and meat of a chicken and non-domesticated kosher animal in pure milk is only a rabbinic prohibition for eating and are permitted to cook and receive benefit.' And the Beit Yosef writes, '[the Tur] did not intend to write this language since we don't see this language, that it is only rabbinic, for the first two cases, but only for the non-domesticated animal and chicken in pure milk. This is because in the case of pure meat in impure milk or the opposite, the Rabbis did not prohibit to eat because of mixing meat and milk. They did not establish any Rabbinic prohibitions [in this case], since it is already a Torah prohibition to consume impure meat or impure milk.' This is the corrected way to understand the text [of the Tur] and it is the proper understanding. However, the Bach understands the Tur as is written, that the first two cases are rabbinic prohibitions of mixing meat and milk. The practical reason being 'the piece becomes carrion'/ChaNaN (חנ"נ\ חתיכה נעשית נבילה explained in siman 92) which only applies in the case of mixing meat and milk and also to the case of 'the piece that is proper for serving' look there. This is the opinion of the Perisha. According to this, which is how we hold, ChaNaN applies to all forbidden foods, as the [Rema] writes in siman 92 seif 4 see there and search. This is also clear from Rashi and the Ran (Chapter All the Meat - Chullin 113a in the mishna) that [ChaNaN] is not a prohibition based on mixing meat and milk at all even rabbinically, and there is no reason at all that the Rabbis would prohibit on the basis of mixing meat and milk. It makes sense that the Rabbis prohibited mixing chicken with milk, lest one think they can also eat other meat milk, as the Rambam states there. However, the notion to prohibit pure meat with impure milk or vice versa has no reason to worry about transgressing another prohibited act. This seems to be the intention of the Beit Yosef in not prohibiting [pure meat and impure milk or vice versa] on the basis of mixing meat and milk, unlike the Bach, since it is already forbidden by the Torah and there is no reason to make a decree [fence to protect against another act]. The Beit Yosef is saying that there is no practical case to prohibit on the basis of mixing meat and milk. And this is also the ruling for the case of 'the piece that is proper for serving' which explained later in seif 110. Also the Drisha writes at the end there that there is no place that pure meat and impure milk or vice versa has a rabbinic prohibition and is considered carrion on a rabbinic basis.

(2) 2. In the Tur it is written [as] "...but Kosher meat in impure milk or the opposite...and wild animal meat, etc." - these prohibitions are rabbinical and it is permitted to cook them. The Beis Yosef concludes that if one Min (kind) is tamei, this is forbidden to be eaten according to Torah law. And why was a decree of Meat and Milk applied to it with regard to eating. The Drisha and my teacher and father in law, of blessed memory, reconcile that there is a practical difference that this decree was made to apply the din of "Piece itself becomes Unkosher" to it. That's the logic of Rabbeinu Efraim in Siman 92. That we only say this regarding Meat and Milk. The rabbis are not correct in this, their honor intact, that the primary reason that Rabbeinu Efraim was stringent regarding Meat and Milk is that each one itself is allowed. It is only prohibited when it's mixed and becomes one body. Like the Beis Yosef brings in the name of Tosefos in Siman 82. It is not relevant in a case where one of the them is impure because anyways there is a Torah prohibition on it. If so, it should be like any other prohibition. You can't say that the Rabbis enacted a decree on this to apply the law of "piece that becomes unkosher" because of other Meat and Milk from the Torah. For if so, the decree should have applied even regarding cooking and benefit since anyways there is a Torah prohibition against eating. They are stringent regard mixtures here too they should have been strigent in this. From these things, there is a difficulty even what my teacher and father in law, of blessed memory, wrote. That there is practical difference in the case of "a piece fitting to be honoured" as mentioned in Shulchan Aruch Siman 101. If it is prohibited because it receices the flavour, it is nullified excpet regard Meat and Milk. Even this is not at all right because the stringency of Meat and Milk there is a practical difference from the reason of "a piece that becomes unkosher", as explained by the Beis Yosef, there in the name of the Toras HaBais (Rashba) and the "..." and the Sefer HaTerumah. Since that the Meat and Milk become cooked, it becomes one body of prohibition. In contract to other prohibitions...

(8) There are those that say that the whey of the milk (meaning the milk that's extracted from the curdled cheese) is not included in [the category] of "milk water" and it is forbidden from the torah. Rather, this is what "milk water" is: after they make the cheese they cook the whey, and the foodstuff floats to the top, and the only thing that's left is mere water; this is what's called "milk water".

(6) A person who [Cooks meat and milk together by] smoking and or cooking in the hot springs of Tiberius does not receive lashes for transgressing a lav. Similarly,cooking meat in "mai chalav" (milk water) or chalav maisa ("dead milk") or chalav zachar or cooking blood and milk together is exempt (from lashes) and one who eats it [milk cooked with blood] does not receive lashes for [transgressing the lav of] meat and milk. RAMA: Chalav zachar is not called milk at all and if it fell into a pot of meat it would not be forbidden. However [if ]chalav maisa or mai chalav [fell into a pot of meat] the food is forbidden because they are comparable to milk. It is even forbidden to cook [chalav maisa or mai chalav with meat] initially. There are those who say that it is forbidden to stoke the fire under the pot of a non-Jew because they use the same pot sometimes to cook milk and sometimes to cook meat. Therefore by stoking the fire under the non-Jew’s pot one may come to cook meat and milk [together]. Furthermore, one should not mix together the water that was used for washing milk dishes with water that was used to wash meat dishes and then give it to an animal because the water becomes forbidden for use. And furthermore, the container that is used to make shampoo should not be used [for anything else] because the ashes on the stove that are used to make shampoo are mixed with milk and meat. Therefore it is forbidden to use the pots that are usually on the stoves in the winter lodges because sometimes milk and meat splash on them from the cooking going on in the oven itself. After the fact, we do not worry about the above laws, and furthermore even initially they are only a chumra b’alma (stringency of the world). One who is lenient will not lose.

(4) It is forbidden to cook [meat] with the milk of a woman, because of appearances. If woman's milk fell into [meat] food, it is nullified and there is no need to measure. RAMA: It seems according to this, all the more so that it is forbidden to cook with impure milk or impure meat with pure milk, in the case of domesticated animals. But with rabbinical prohibited fowl, there is no need to be concerned.

(6) A person who [Cooks meat and milk together by] smoking and or cooking in the hot springs of Tiberius does not receive lashes for transgressing a lav. Similarly,cooking meat in "mai chalav" (milk water) or chalav maisa ("dead milk") or chalav zachar or cooking blood and milk together is exempt (from lashes) and one who eats it [milk cooked with blood] does not receive lashes for [transgressing the lav of] meat and milk. RAMA: Chalav zachar is not called milk at all and if it fell into a pot of meat it would not be forbidden. However [if ]chalav maisa or mai chalav [fell into a pot of meat] the food is forbidden because they are comparable to milk. It is even forbidden to cook [chalav maisa or mai chalav with meat] initially. There are those who say that it is forbidden to stoke the fire under the pot of a non-Jew because they use the same pot sometimes to cook milk and sometimes to cook meat. Therefore by stoking the fire under the non-Jew’s pot one may come to cook meat and milk [together]. Furthermore, one should not mix together the water that was used for washing milk dishes with water that was used to wash meat dishes and then give it to an animal because the water becomes forbidden for use. And furthermore, the container that is used to make shampoo should not be used [for anything else] because the ashes on the stove that are used to make shampoo are mixed with milk and meat. Therefore it is forbidden to use the pots that are usually on the stoves in the winter lodges because sometimes milk and meat splash on them from the cooking going on in the oven itself. After the fact, we do not worry about the above laws, and furthermore even initially they are only a chumra b’alma (stringency of the world). One who is lenient will not lose.

(4) It is forbidden to cook [meat] with the milk of a woman, because of appearances. If woman's milk fell into [meat] food, it is nullified and there is no need to measure. RAMA: It seems according to this, all the more so that it is forbidden to cook with impure milk or impure meat with pure milk, in the case of domesticated animals. But with rabbinical prohibited fowl, there is no need to be concerned.

(3) The law only applies with meat from a pure [kosher] animal and milk from a pure animal, but meat of a pure animal in milk that is impure, or meat from an impure animal in pure milk, is permitted to cook and benefit from. Meat of a wild animal and of fowl, even in milk which is pure, is permitted to cook and benefit from; and even eating is only prohibited rabbinically. Fish and grasshoppers are not prohibited [with milk] even rabbinically. RAMA: We make milk from almonds and place bird meat in it, since [milk and bird meat] is only rabbinically [forbidden]. But with meat from a domesticated animal, place almonds next to the milk, so that people don't misunderstand. This is as we said above, in chapter 66.

(6) A person who [Cooks meat and milk together by] smoking and or cooking in the hot springs of Tiberius does not receive lashes for transgressing a lav. Similarly,cooking meat in "mai chalav" (milk water) or chalav maisa ("dead milk") or chalav zachar or cooking blood and milk together is exempt (from lashes) and one who eats it [milk cooked with blood] does not receive lashes for [transgressing the lav of] meat and milk. RAMA: Chalav zachar is not called milk at all and if it fell into a pot of meat it would not be forbidden. However [if ]chalav maisa or mai chalav [fell into a pot of meat] the food is forbidden because they are comparable to milk. It is even forbidden to cook [chalav maisa or mai chalav with meat] initially. There are those who say that it is forbidden to stoke the fire under the pot of a non-Jew because they use the same pot sometimes to cook milk and sometimes to cook meat. Therefore by stoking the fire under the non-Jew’s pot one may come to cook meat and milk [together]. Furthermore, one should not mix together the water that was used for washing milk dishes with water that was used to wash meat dishes and then give it to an animal because the water becomes forbidden for use. And furthermore, the container that is used to make shampoo should not be used [for anything else] because the ashes on the stove that are used to make shampoo are mixed with milk and meat. Therefore it is forbidden to use the pots that are usually on the stoves in the winter lodges because sometimes milk and meat splash on them from the cooking going on in the oven itself. After the fact, we do not worry about the above laws, and furthermore even initially they are only a chumra b’alma (stringency of the world). One who is lenient will not lose.

(1) Even with meat of a wild animal and a bird it is forbidden to put them on a table where one is eating cheese, so that he doesn't come to eat them together. But [to put] on a table that's meant for arranging cooked foods, it is permitted to put one next to the other.

(20) It is forbidden to serve fowl72Needless to say, this applies to meat (see Lechem Mishneh). together with milk on the table upon which one is eating.73They may, however, be placed together on a serving table (Chullin 104b). This is a decree [enacted] because habit [might lead] to sin.74Since both substances are permitted and they are served together, one might accidentally partake of them together.
Implied is that if substances are forbidden and one would not ordinarily partake of them, there is no difficulty in having them served on the table at which one is eating. See Siftei Cohen 88:2. We fear that one will eat one with the other. [This applies] even though fowl with milk is forbidden only because of Rabbinic decree.75See the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 88:2) which explains that if a distinction is made, e.g., the milk is placed on one type of placemat and the meat on another, there is no prohibition.

(2) That which is forbidden to put together on the same table, that is precisely only with two men who recognize each other, even if they insist on not sharing food with each other. However, by guests who don't recognize one another, it is permitted. And even by those who recognize each other, if they make any sign, such as if each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on a single tablecloth but they place bread between themselves as a sign, it is permitted. Rema: And this is precisely if they don't eat from the bread that's placed between them as a sign, but if they eat from it, it is no longer considered a sign, because even without this purpose, bread from which they eat from is placed on the table. But if they placed a drinking vessel between themselves, and if not for this purpose it is not normal for it to be on the table, it would be a sign even if they drink from the vessel. And of course if they place on [the table] a candelabra or other items on the table that they are [valid] signs. And they should be careful not to drink from a single vessel because food sticks to the vessel. And of course they should not eat from the same bread. And so is our custom to have individual salt-vessels for each person themselves, because sometimes when they dip into the salt there remains leftovers of the food in the salt.

(2) That which is forbidden to put together on the same table, that is precisely only with two men who recognize each other, even if they insist on not sharing food with each other. However, by guests who don't recognize one another, it is permitted. And even by those who recognize each other, if they make any sign, such as if each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on a single tablecloth but they place bread between themselves as a sign, it is permitted. Rema: And this is precisely if they don't eat from the bread that's placed between them as a sign, but if they eat from it, it is no longer considered a sign, because even without this purpose, bread from which they eat from is placed on the table. But if they placed a drinking vessel between themselves, and if not for this purpose it is not normal for it to be on the table, it would be a sign even if they drink from the vessel. And of course if they place on [the table] a candelabra or other items on the table that they are [valid] signs. And they should be careful not to drink from a single vessel because food sticks to the vessel. And of course they should not eat from the same bread. And so is our custom to have individual salt-vessels for each person themselves, because sometimes when they dip into the salt there remains leftovers of the food in the salt.

(2) That which is forbidden to put together on the same table, that is precisely only with two men who recognize each other, even if they insist on not sharing food with each other. However, by guests who don't recognize one another, it is permitted. And even by those who recognize each other, if they make any sign, such as if each one eats on his own tablecloth, or even if they eat on a single tablecloth but they place bread between themselves as a sign, it is permitted. Rema: And this is precisely if they don't eat from the bread that's placed between them as a sign, but if they eat from it, it is no longer considered a sign, because even without this purpose, bread from which they eat from is placed on the table. But if they placed a drinking vessel between themselves, and if not for this purpose it is not normal for it to be on the table, it would be a sign even if they drink from the vessel. And of course if they place on [the table] a candelabra or other items on the table that they are [valid] signs. And they should be careful not to drink from a single vessel because food sticks to the vessel. And of course they should not eat from the same bread. And so is our custom to have individual salt-vessels for each person themselves, because sometimes when they dip into the salt there remains leftovers of the food in the salt.

(28) When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours.95This is the view stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:1) and in the Rama's conclusion, although the Rama does mention that there are some more lenient views. This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.96The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 89) gives a different rationale: that because meat is fatty, its taste persists for a long time.

(1) One who eats meat, even of a wild animal or fowl, does not eat cheese afterwards until he waits six hours. Even if he waits that period, if he has meat between his teeth he has to remove it. One who chews food for a child has to wait. If afterwards he finds meat between his teeth and removes it, he has to wipe his mouth out before eating cheese (Ran chapter 25). There are those that say that he doesn't have to wait six hours, but rather immediately if he finishes the meal and says the concluding blessing, it is permissible after wiping and rinsing his mouth (Tosafot Hullin 105a - "At the next meal", Mordechai chapter 25, Haga'ot Ashri, Haga'ot Maimoniot chapter 9 of forbidden foods, and Ravya). The simple custom in our countries is to wait after eating meat one hour and to eat cheese afterwards, but you have to say the concluding blessing after the meat (HaAruch, Haga'ot Shaarei Dura) because then it's like a new meal and permissible to eat according to the lenient view. But with no blessing, waiting alone does not good. It doesn't matter if you waited before the blessing or afterwards (his own reasoning, from the Mahari, as opposed to the Issur v'Heter). If he finds meat between his teeth after the hour, he has to pull it out (his own reasoning, from the Ran above). And there are those that say not to say the concluding blessing in order to eat cheese (Aruch in the name of Maharach) but we're not careful about this. And some are careful to wait six hours after eating meat before eating cheese, and it's proper to do so.

(28) When a person ate meat first - whether the meat of an animal or the meat of a fowl - he should not partake of milk afterwards unless he waits the time for another meal, approximately six hours.95This is the view stated in the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 89:1) and in the Rama's conclusion, although the Rama does mention that there are some more lenient views. This stringency is required because meat that becomes stuck between teeth and is not removed by cleaning.96The Tur (Yoreh De'ah 89) gives a different rationale: that because meat is fatty, its taste persists for a long time.

(2) If one ate cheese it is permissible to eat meat immediately afterwards as long as one examines one's hands, so that one should not have any pieces of cheese attached to them, and if it is night and one is therefore unable to examine them thoroughly one must wash them. One must clean one's mouth and rinse it out. One cleans it by chewing bread, thereby thoroughly cleaning his mouth with it, and one can do this with anything that one chooses, except with flour, dates, or vegetables, because they attach to the palate (the area above the esophagus close to the teeth) and do not wipe well. Afterwards one should rinse one's mouth with water or wine. This was all stated in regard to meat of domestic or wild animals, but if one wishes to eat poultry after cheese there is no need for cleaning or rinsing. Comment (Ramah): some are stringent (to wait six hours) even with meat after cheese (Mordechai in the name of the Maharam and Bet Yosef, Bach siman 173) and so is the custom with hard cheese, we do not eat afterwards even poultry, like with cheese after meat (and so it is in the Zohar). Some are lenient, and one should not protest against them, but they should do cleaning, rinsing, and washing of the hands, and it is better to be stringent.

(3) If one ate a cooked dish made with meat, it is permitted to eat afterward a cooked dish made with cheese, and washing between them is only optional. And there are those that require washing. But if one comes to eat cheese itself after a cooked dish made with meat or [to eat] meat itself after a cooked dish made with cheese, it is an obligation to wash his hands [between the foods]. Rema: And fat of meat has the law of meat itself. And our custom now is to be stringent to not eat cheese after a cooked dish made with meat just like after eating meat itself, and one should not change this and break this fence. However, if there is no meat in the cooked dish, only that it was cooked in a pot used for meat, it is permitted to eat cheese afterward, and there is no custom to be stringent. And so too is the custom to eat meat after a cooked dish that has cheese or milk in it. However, there is [reason] to wash one's hands between them, and this is even [in a case where] one didn't eat actual meat but rather only a cooked dish made with meat after a cooked dish made with cheese if he touched them with his hands. A servant that prepares the meal and touches the food is not required to wash because we only require washing for those eating.

(4) One who ate cheese, and wants to eat meat, needs to remove from the table leftover bread that he ate with the cheese. And it is forbidden to eat cheese on the tablecloth that they ate meat on. (And vice-versa is similarly forbidden.) (So is implied in the Aruch.) And all the more so is it forbidden to cut cheese, even cold, with a knife that they usually use to cut meat. And not only that, but even the bread that they eat with the cheese is forbidden to cut with a knife that they use to cut meat. And vice-versa is also similarly forbidden. However, via stabbing into hard ground, it is permitted. (Beit Yosef, quoting A"Ch and Kol Bo). But, all of Israel already is accustomed to having two knives and to mark one of them, so it is distinguished, they are accustomed to marking the dairy one, and it's not right to change a custom of Israel.