YWN Coffee Room

YWN Coffee Room » Bais Medrash

51. yitayningwut
    Bruno Michel Iksil

    hello99 -

    The Torah was makpid on bishul for basar b'chalav, not just ta'am. אי תרו לה כוליה יומא בחלבא שרי. So I don't see your point from there, because obviously it has to be "called" bishul. That doesn't mean bishul is not a metzius. And I don't know why something may be heated by the sun on Shabbos. Maybe there's a metzius of bishul that only occurs with fire. Maybe the derech of bishul is only with fire. I don't know. The point is, you are saying אלא מאי a massive chiddush. Bring me a raya where you actually see this idea implied, not just as an answer to a kasha.

    I am now thinking of a pshat, and maybe this is what you meant the whole time.

    Eating makes me full. Putting an IV into my arm can also make me full. That does not mean an IV is eating. You are judging the effects of bishul, looking at something else which has the same effect, and saying it should be the same thing. But just like you understand that when the Torah assered eating, it didn't asser the IV; when the Torah assered bishul, it didn't asser the other things that might do the same thing. Bishul can be a metzius, and that does not mean another metzius cannot achieve the same effect. It still isn't bishul. Bishul is in a kli with liquid that was heated on a fire. That's it.

    To put it in yeshivishe terms, bishul is not just a metzius, it is a pe'ula.

    Posted 5 months ago #

52. hello99
    Member

    Yitay: I have to admit I’m a little surprised that you even consider this point a Chiddush at all. It seems to me to be self-evident from YD 87 that the Issur Bishul and Issur Hana’ah are not solely dependent on a chemical process. Furthermore, OC 318 is also clear that the Chiyuv on Shabbos contains other factors as well.
    Maybe if I rephrase, omitting the phrase “Din Bishul”, it will make it more palatable to you. To be Chayav Chatas on Shabbos for Bishul requires דומיה דמלאכת המשכן. Therefore, תולדות החמה or כלי שני no matter how hot they are and how chemically identical the outcome is, cannot be Chayav. While the food is fully cooked, this is not the Bishul that the Torah forbade. Do you think that if someone cooked in תולדות החמה and a laboratory determined it identical to a similar item cooked on the fire that it would change the Halacha?
    Additionally, בשר בחלב requires דרך בישול to become אסור בהנאה. This means that even if a cheeseburger melted on a דבר גוש would be chemically identical to one heated directly on the fire, the first would only be אסור באכילה while the second would be אסור בהנאה. The first is chemically cooked, but not in the manner that the Torah dictated. Would you allow a laboratory test to change this Halacha too?
    תתאה גבר, at least according to the Binas Adam, defines the observable chemical change effected by a hot object on the formerly cold one above it, as meeting the Torah’s requirement for the איסור שבת and איסור בב"ח.
    Do you find this more acceptable?

    Posted 5 months ago #

53. yitayningwut
    Bruno Michel Iksil

    hello99 -

    Maybe if I rephrase, omitting the phrase “Din Bishul”, it will make it more palatable to you. To be Chayav Chatas on Shabbos for Bishul requires דומיה דמלאכת המשכן. Therefore, תולדות החמה or כלי שני no matter how hot they are and how chemically identical the outcome is, cannot be Chayav. While the food is fully cooked, this is not the Bishul that the Torah forbade. Do you think that if someone cooked in תולדות החמה and a laboratory determined it identical to a similar item cooked on the fire that it would change the Halacha?

    I don't. To this I agree. And the same for basar b'chalav. Omitting the idea of a "din bishul" and replacing it with the idea that the Torah forbade the process, I think it makes a lot of sense.

    One point about basar b'chalav: Even though there is no idea of דומיא דמלאכת המשכן, there is still the fact that the issur of the Torah used the word bishul. Bishul is not just an outcome, it is a process. Therefore one would not be עובר with something "cooked" by a lab, because it is not called bishul. Bishul means a certain process. Again, I suspect that this is what you meant by din bishul in the first place, it's just that I guess I don't like those words so much.

    What you bring from the Binas Adam is I think also mefurash in the Ran at the end of כל הבשר. But we are dealing with a kli rishon, so I have no problem with that.

    This is all l'inyan bishul.

    Kli sheini in siman 105 is a different story. I don't think it would make any sense to say that בליעות are limited to a specific process, and even you who are using the words "din bishul," I doubt you would go so far to say there's a "din bliya," because we find that they were אוסר any possible way that בליעות could be transferred - cooking, roasting, baking, frying, salting, pickling, and soaking. Therefore I think it is clear that when the mechaber and Rema say that a kli sheini is nothing, they mean in metzius it is nothing. And when we say no ta'am gets transferred when the תתאה is hot, we mean it in metzius, not just in din. Because the halacha of תתאה גבר is not limited to בשר בחלב, and therefore is is not only talking in hilchos bishul. Therefore I still believe that where bliyos are concerned, we have the rules for when we aren't sure, but when we know there was ta'am transferred, לית מאן דפליג it's assur.

    Posted 5 months ago #

54. hello99
    Member

    Great. Now I think you are ready to hear my real Chiddush. It's getting late here, maybe I will have time to write it Motzei Shabbos

    Posted 5 months ago #

55. yitayningwut
    Bruno Michel Iksil

    Let's hear :)

    Posted 5 months ago #

56. hello99
    Member

    What I was thinking follows these lines.
    There are two aspects to תתאה גבר, the first we agreed upon last week is that generally the lower object heats the upper one, and not the opposite. While this is not a Chok and will not outweigh our perceptions, it is relevant when no observation was made at the time. If we do not know if the previously cool object became hot or not, we can presume that if it was the top one it did, and if it was the bottom it did not. As the Aruch HaShulchan and others qualify, this assumption is only applicable when they were of similar sizes. Additionally, regarding this quality of תתאה גבר the Pri Megadim and Chavos Da’as state that a red-hot iron above the food can be assumed to effectively heat even a cool item underneath it.
    This is all relevant when the issue at hand is Issur v’Heter, contact between one object that is Muttar and a second which is Assur. In this situation, the relevant issue is Bliyos and Ha’avaras Ta’am, and these depend solely upon reaching an adequate temperature.
    However, there is also a second aspect of תתאה גבר, relevant solely to Shabbos and Basar b’Chalav; the issue of the definition of the act of Bishul forbidden by the Torah. Even when the formerly cool item has reached Yad Soledes Bo, and even if it has observably undergone the chemical change associated with the process of cooking, there is no imperative that this process fulfils the qualifications of Bishul necessary to transgress these prohibitions. This can only occur when the lower, hot item is heating the higher cool one. Otherwise, the process undergone may be “cooking”, but is not the Bishul forbidden by the Torah.
    When the Binas Adam writes that a red-hot Milchig frying pan paced on top of cold meat does not forbid it, I want to suggest that his intention is solely regarding the Issur Hana’ah. He merely is denying the Derech Bishul necessary to invoke לא תבשל, but there is inevitably an Issur d’Rabannan due to Ha’avaras Ta’am.
    Similarly, a Davar Gush or Kli Sheini Yad Nichvis Bo according to most Poskim will certainly create Bliyos and Ha’avaras Ta’am if they are observed to heat the formerly cool object, though we may not be obligated to suspect this occurred if it was not measured. However, they do not effect the form of Bishul forbidden by the Torah, even though they may be fully capable of creating the same chemical process as a Kli Rishon.
    In conclusion, my main Chiddush is that any time we observe a mixture or contact between Issur and Heter and both become observably warm, one should be obligated to assume there was a transfer of Ta’am and forbid the former Heter. This is regardless of whether the heat was Kli Rishon , Sheini or Shlishi; top or bottom, solid or liquid, etc.
    Sorry for writing in English, I type faster this way.
    What do you think?

    Posted 5 months ago #

57. yitayningwut
    Bruno Michel Iksil

    Beautifully put.

    Basically you are saying that not everything which makes something "cooked" is called bishul, and even though something is not bishul there can still be a transfer of ta'am, and that will occur anytime there is a transfer of heat, although when we do not know whether or not there was a transfer of heat we will have certain rules of what we may assume. I agree.

    To paraphrase R' Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (said about R' Chaim's chiddushim in the Rambam), I am not sure if your p'shat in the Binas Adam is historically accurate, but I believe it is true in any case because it makes a lot of sense.

    I would change one thing. You wrote - "and both become observably warm," I would change that to "observably hot" - as in yad soledes. Otherwise it is taluy in whether you hold like the Mechaber/Rema or Maharshal etc.

    Posted 5 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.