Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Bishul Akum? › Reply To: Bishul Akum?
Do you really expect anybody to take your words seriously?
No, but at least take the words of the Mishna Berurah seriously.
?? ?????? . ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????
Maybe your potatoes, beans and barley are edible raw?
Oh, I read it and he is explaining why it’s Ossur to eat a Goy’s food even if he cooked it for himself.
??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????
????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???
Yup, you are right -that’s exactly what I hold; NOT!
??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???-????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???-???????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????????????.
Who said it wasn’t secured in the outlet? Or you thought you plugged it in, but you didn’t?
You.
“I don’t have access to that sefer,”
That’s not my problem. I’m sure you could order it.
Are you sponsoring?
“and even so, kavod habrios is bigger than your cholent; if you disagree, you’ll need to bring a raya”
We actually had this discussion on the previous page. And I answered you over there. Check it out!
No answer there. If you think there was, please quote or link to the post.
“You also claimed that he addresses it in B’er Moshe, which I do have access to, but for some reason you have not been able to provide that source.”
I think it’s there also, but I’m like you -I don’t want to go searching for it.
The difference is, you claim you saw it there.
As far as 328, you gotta be a little specific on what your Raya is!
I was; I’ll repeat:
The R’ma in 328 allows bishul al y’dei aku”m for a child who has no other food, because a child has a din of a choleh. If the R’ma were mattir a d’oraiso for the mitzvah of oneg Shabbos, this would be true even for a healthy adult.
“You should also check out Aruch Hashulchan 34 – 36, who learns the R’ma distiction between a food which had cooled and one still warm, as applying to kavod Shabbos, and a mitzvah which would be muttar in a case of shvus d’shvus, but NOT a d’oraiso.”
Now which case are you talking about – the case of Tzorech Godol or 253?
Look it up. My point is that 253 is the same “tzorech gadol” you had.
At least you’re Modeh B’miksas!
???
Just because you both say you’re right -doesn’t make you right -only in your minds!
How many times are you going to say that?