- This topic has 363 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
???? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????. ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????, ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???’ ?????? ??”? ??? ???”? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????.
I edited briefly, but he concludes that when supervision has eliminated the risk of Tarfus, the remaining issue according to some Poskim that a Mumar is a Goy, does not bother him.
Health: It is very unlikely that there will a Bishul Akum problem. The cholent should already be cooked at least k’Ma’achal ben Drusai before Shabbos. However, Amira l’Akum is certainly an issue.
Hello99,
You are correct that the Shach does not seem to agree with the Ran who includes a Mechalel Shabbos in the general Gezeira against Goyim.
The B”Y paskens like the Rashb”a, so I don’t think the Sha”ch would argue. I don’t learn the Sha”ch like you.
It’s in 73:14 (after the one you quoted). The one you quoted is not his maskana; he’s still presenting the shaila, and limiting it to where there’s no chashash issur. What I quoted is his psak. You should look up the TT”V as well.
you should be careful when quoting vol 8.
Yes I know, but the OCR software I used to copy and paste doesn’t chap. 🙂
BTW, I heard that they printed a 9th volume. What do people say about its reliability?
I don’t know; what’s interesting is that the Rav Feinsteins, in the hakdamah to 9, insist that 8 is reliable. Although I’ve heard of specific teshuvos that they privately say are “mistakes”.
I assumed Health was referring to a raw cholent. If it was 1/3 or 1/2 cooked, and there was no direct amira, would the hana’ah not be muttar as tosefes hana’ah?
Actually, these words you are quoting from the Minchas Yitzchok are NOT his conclusion. They are a quote from the Levushei Mordechai.
Secondly, the IGM 8 writes that since the Rashba is only quoted in Beis Yosef and not Shulchan Aruch, the true feelings of the Mechaber are unclear. This would be equally applicable here. There is no proof he Paskens the Rashba against the Rivash, if they are arguing at all.
Finally, since when does the Shach ever hesitate to argue on Shulchan Aruch? Especially, when he has the Rivash, Rabbeinu Yerucham, Tashbetz Katan, Orchos Chaim and Kol Bo backing him up.
So, how do YOU understand the Shach?
I doubt someone would put a completely raw cholent on the crockpot immediately before Shabbos. I think the remaining improvement from 1/3 cooked to fully cooked is enough to Asser Hana’ah
Not 100% clear what Pri Megadim holds
??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?”?
??? ??? ??? ???? ????, ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????, ????? ???? ??”? [???? ? ??”? ??? ?”? ?] ???, ??? ??? ????? ????”? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??. ?????? ?????? ???”? ????? ????”? ?? ???? ???? ????”?, ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????.
He seems to only be concerned about a Mumar l’AZ and not a Mechalel Shabbos.
Another lenient Posek:
??”? ????? ???? ??? ? – ???? ??? ???? ??
(??”? ??? ?????) ??”? ?”? ???? ????? /?????/ ?”? ??”? ??”? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??’ /?????/ ?? ?”? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ???”? ???’ ?? ?’ ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??’ ???”? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?”? ??”? ????? ?’ ????? ???.
excerpted from OU document a-133
Rav Belsky commented as follows:
???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ???? ??”? ??? ????? ????? ??”? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???. ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????.
?????? ???? ?’ ??? ????”? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??”? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????”? ?’ ????? ????? ????”? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?????. ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ??”? ?????’ ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??????. ??? ??? ???? ????? ???”? ?”? ???? ?”?, ???? ?? ?????, ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? (?? ?? ???? ???) ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????.
??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????, ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????, ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????. ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????. ??? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????, ??’ ???? ??? ??.
He clearly understood that Reb Moshe was Meilkil, apparently, he heard it personally.
????? ????? ???”? ?? ?? ??????
?? ????? ????? ???? ?????, ?? ?????, ??????? ????
?????, ???? ??????.
These are the actual words of the M”Y’s psak; what I quoted earlier were indeed the words of the the L”M describing the psak of the TT”V).
The Rashba contrasts an individual who tells the Goyim he believes in AZ and the Yidden that he is Frum, where we can assume that his true beliefs are not AZ, with a habitual Mechalel Shabbos.
The source of the commonly accepted issur on yayin of a m”S is that Rashb”a (quoted in B”Y) towards the end (after the part you refer to), who writes, “??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?”? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???”
So, how do YOU understand the Shach?
Referring to mumar l’avodah zara, not l’challel Shabbosos.
The first part of Rav Belsky’s teshuva is consitent with the IG”M 8 I showed you, that it’s talui on the minhag. I don’t know why he only relied on it b’tziruf his other sevara (1:45).
The latter part of Rav Belsky’s teshuva ignores the reasoning of the poskim who have a problem with chasnus of a mumar; it’s no better than an aku”m without children, with whom bishul is still assur (I think I saw it in the Lechem Haponim).
Here’s the Lechem Haponim:
????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ????”? ??? ???? ???????.
As I mentioned earlier, the reasoning of knas was not my invention; it’s a Chasam Sofer and a Chazon Ish (the L”H, even though also machmir, disagrees on this point).
Mahara”m Schick apparently, as well.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1494&st=&pgnum=198
(paragraph begins ????)
I would be interested to find a m’kor one way or the other for tosefes hana’ah on maachol Ben Drusai. On one hand, it was edible, so it would seem to be like the case of an extra light. On the other hand, we do find cases where something was edible, but cooking is still assur mishun hana’ah (e.g. water).
DY: “Referring to mumar l’avodah zara, not l’challel Shabbosos”
Wonderful. So you understand the Shach as agreeing that only a Mumar l’AZ makes Stam Yainam and not a Mechalele Shabbos who is equivalent to aMashuch b’Orlaso.
No, he makes stam yaynom, not yayin nesech.
I forgot to show you part of the nusach of the letter in the beginning of IG”M 9, signed by Rabbi Tendler and Rabbis Feinstein:
?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????”? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????
???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ????”? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??????
I wonder if there is a point in discussing a tshuva (even a slightly complex one) on a forum. The fragmentation makes the argument revolve in circles. Feels like its impossible for someone to really prove a point and for the other to agree.
uneeq: while the format is less than ideal and talking face-to-face is more productive, it does have advantages. This way, each side has time to look up sources and contemplate their position in between rejoinders, something difficult when debating in person.
In any event, while not a perfect venue, debating Torah certainly beats discussing mundane topics.
I contacted a number of leading Hechsherim to determine the Minhag and accepted Psak. The OU as you saw is Matir.
Also, he make sno mention of any Minhag.
?????? ???? ?’ ??? ????”? ?????? ????
He is clearly referring to 1:45 and 46
He’s not. His talmid, Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits, considered his opinion in the teshuva (45) to be, “isn’t so sure” (that it’s assur). I have another basis for knowing that it’s not based on this teshuva, but it’s not a citable source.
http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume5/Issue15.pdf
??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ??
He would say that on the Mahara”m Schick and Lechem Haponim?
while the format is less than ideal and talking face-to-face is more productive, it does have advantages. This way, each side has time to look up sources and contemplate their position in between rejoinders, something difficult when debating in person.
In any event, while not a perfect venue, debating Torah certainly beats discussing mundane topics.
I agree (and I will try to review and contemplate that Sha”ch again 🙂 ).
???? ??? on your response in the “speechless” thread.
Also, he make sno mention of any Minhag.
?????? ???? ?’ ??? ????”? ?????? ????
He is clearly referring to 1:45 and 46
He’s not. His talmid, Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits, considered his opinion in the teshuva (45) to be, “isn’t so sure” (that it’s assur). I have another basis for knowing that it’s not based on this teshuva, but it’s not a citable source.
http://www.thehalacha.com/attach/Volume5/Issue15.pdf
??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????, ??? ??? ???? ?????
He would say that on the Mahara”m Schick and Lechem Haponim?
while the format is less than ideal and talking face-to-face is more productive, it does have advantages. This way, each side has time to look up sources and contemplate their position in between rejoinders, something difficult when debating in person.
In any event, while not a perfect venue, debating Torah certainly beats discussing mundane topics.
I agree (and I will try to review and contemplate that Sha”ch again 🙂 ).
???? ??? on your response in the “speechless” thread.
Back to the Sha”ch. You wrote that the reason for the issur of yayin shel mechallel Shabbos is because maybe he was menasech to A”Z. It’s hard to believe that he’s worse than the akum who is not oved avodas elilim.
I quote from the IG”M 8:
?”? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?”?, ??”? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?”? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??”?, ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????.
That Sha”ch is addressing a mumar for A”Z and doesn’t deal at all with a mumar for Shabbos.
Later in that teshuva, R’ Moshe writes:
??”? ?? ????? ??”?, ?????”? ?? ????? ?? ??”? ,??”? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???.
If, as you say, it were clear that the Sha”ch was toleh the issur davka on a chashash that he was menasech, then according to R’ Moshe’s own understanding that there is no chashash on a M”S, he should have brought that Sha”ch to definitively exclude his yayin from the issur.
BTW, the fact that the national hechsherim are lenient does not surprise me (in fact, before engaging in this discussion, I asked a posek how we pasken l’maaseh, and he told me that the poskim he knows are machmir l’chatchilah, but that the hecsherim are meikil). There is definitely what to rely upon, and their goal is to provide kosher food to as wide a public as possible.
I was not debating this issue from the perspective of a hechsher, rather from the perspective of an individual who wants to follow basic Halacha, without being unduly machmir, nor relying on kulos.
Along the way, it’s interesting to discuss the shittos of individual poskim.
Not worse, according to the Rashba, the same. A Goy who rejects idolatry does not create Yayin Nesech, but he does create Stam Yainam, see Shulchan Aruch YD 124:6. A Mechalel Shabbos, in his opinion, is the same.
hello99 -“Health: It is very unlikely that there will a Bishul Akum problem. The cholent should already be cooked at least k’Ma’achal ben Drusai before Shabbos. However, Amira l’Akum is certainly an issue.”
Why shouldn’t it be Bishul Acum? Who said it was cooked?
Why would it be an Issur of Amira L’acum?
Health- Bishul akum is when a goy cooks all of the food without any input from a jew. According to ashkenazim even lighting the fire is enough. For sephardim, the jew has to actually take part in the actual cooking, but not the whole thing. So if the crockpot was on and then got turned off, it for sure cooked something under a jew’s hands. That’s why he doesn’t think that it’s likely to be a problem of bishul akum. Only if it was completely raw it would be a problem, if it was in a crockpot. On the fire, an ashkenazi can be meikel from that point.
However, if the cholent is cooked partially-but not ma’achal ben drosai- before shabbos, you would have a problem of shehiya even before shabbos started.
The problem of amira leakum is simpler. You cannot tell a goy to do a melacha for you on shabbos.
So as long as it’s not fully cooked, or it’s cold, it would be a definite Issur.
I’m assuming that you can get around the amira leakum problem, though. If the chulent is fully cooked and gets turned off in middle of shabbos, if it’s still piping hot, or according to ashkenazim, not cold yet, a goy would probably be able to put turn it back on (trei derabanan letzorach mitzva). For sephardim, I understand that you can simply move it yourself into a different pot as long as it’s still hot and put it on the fire.
Hello99,
I believe the OU is probably being meikil with some sort of tziruf, as R’ Moshe does. I will bl”n try to ask R’ Belsky; I hope to see him at a chasunah in a few weeks.
You are making the m”S worse than the akum by attributing to the Sha”ch the possibility that he was menasech to A”Z. The Sha”ch, in fact was not reffering to a m”S at all so no inference can be made from his words.
The posek I referred to was not thrilled that the hechsheirim are meikil.
I would phrase it differently than you; many poskim are machmir, but there are grounds to be meikil.
Re: Hana’ah Mimaaseh Akum –
Are the gedarim for hana’ah from a goy the same as from a Yid?
Also, since according to the shittos that there’s no bishul after mB”D it would be a shvus d’shvus b’makom mitzvah, could we not at least be matir b’dieved?
Uneeq,
Why only for Sefardim?
Hello99,
I hope you had a nice Shabbos.
DY- Why only for Sefardim?
I figure you’re referring to the last thing I said. I believe that the Sephardim wouldn’t have a problem of chazara and the ashkenazim would. I may be wrong though, I’m getting rusty with the shehiya/chazara aspects.
DY: “I believe the OU is probably being meikil with some sort of tziruf, as R’ Moshe does. I will bl”n try to ask R’ Belsky”
go ahead and ask, but I posted what he wrote, and it is clearly NOT a Tziruf. He disputes any grounds for Chumra, and cites Reb Moshe as agreeing.
“You are making the m”S worse than the akum by attributing to the Sha”ch the possibility that he was menasech to A”Z. The Sha”ch, in fact was not reffering to a m”S at all so no inference can be made from his words”
NO, the Shach would have to say the same for an Akum; the possibility remains that he was menasech. He clearly defined Stam Yainam as requiring some possibility of Nisuch.
“He is unsure of what the Sha”ch held”
Where do you see that?
“Are the gedarim for hana’ah from a goy the same as from a Yid?”
I don’t see any reason to be Mechalek. Either it is Hana’ah or not. If you can demonstrate a source or reason to differentiate, I’m happy to consider it.
“Also, since according to the shittos that there’s no bishul after mB”D it would be a shvus d’shvus b’makom mitzvah, could we not at least be matir b’dieved?”
MB doesn’t Pasken like them
As I quoted earlier,
??”? ?? ????? ??”?, ?????”? ?? ????? ?? ??”? ,??”? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???.
Re: hana’ah
MB also paskens (318-2) that there’s no issur b’dieved when there is a machlokes, so even though we don’t pasken that way, if the gedarim of maaseh Shabbos of a goy or Yid are the same, it should be mutar.
uneeq,
The Rm’a in 253-2 says even to a different fire is muttar.
uneeq -It wouldn’t be a problem even if it wasn’t cooked at all. There is a Rishon that holds -A goy cooking in a Jew’s house there is no problem of Bishul A’cum. So B’dieved in such a case you can be Someiach on this Shitta!
There also isn’t a problem of Ameiras L’acum because Cholent is the main course. So to have a Cholent on Shabbos in a crock pot (where cooking is only M’drabbonon because of electricity) would be a Tzorech Godol -where Ameira L’acum is Mutter by an Issur D’rabbonon.
There is a Rishon that holds -A goy cooking in a Jew’s house there is no problem of Bishul A’cum. So B’dieved in such a case you can be Someiach on this Shitta!
We don’t pasken like him (R’ Avraham, brought in Tos’ in Chullin), and you’d have to bring proof that we can be soimech b’dieved on a shittah we don’t pasken like.
in a crock pot (where cooking is only M’drabbonon because of electricity)
It’s D’oraisoh. The bishul is the same, and even turning on the crockpot is a d’Oraisoh since most poskim consider a heating element to be aish.
DaasYochid -“We don’t pasken like him (R’ Avraham, brought in Tos’ in Chullin), and you’d have to bring proof that we can be soimech b’dieved on a shittah we don’t pasken like.”
Aruch Hashulchan!
“It’s D’oraisoh. The bishul is the same, and even turning on the crockpot is a d’Oraisoh since most poskim consider a heating element to be aish.”
My Rov told me that a Crock Pot isn’t like Aish -only like electricity.
Name the most Poskim that argue (by crock pot, not electric stove.):
DY: I don’t know what you want from IGM 8 against the words of the Shach. The Shach clearly says that Stam Yainam requires some connection to AZ.
Also, you are ignoring the main point, that Rav Belsky agrees with me regarding Reb Moshe’s Shitta on Bishul
Health,
The Aruch Hashulchan is only matir if it’s an employee, and one of the factors is that a Jew will likely aid in the cooking, which certainly can’t be said in this case.
I don’t know who your rov is or what his sources might be; the Shmiras Shabbos K’hilchoso clearly includes an elictric hot plate in the category of “aish”, and the IG”M holds that even a microwave can produce bishul D’oraiso, so even were we to find a source that a covered element is not aish, according to the IG”M it would still be bishul D’oraiso.
Hello99,
The Shach clearly says that Stam Yainam requires some connection to AZ.
We can go back and forth on this ad infinitum (ad v’lo ad bichlal 🙂 ), but he says no such thing.
I haven’t ignored it, I’ve said I would rather ask him personally rather than rely on a teshuvah in which I don’t know the context.
R’ Moshe clearly personally felt that it was only based on chasnus, yet in his teshuva never clearly paskens to be totally matir, in fact apparently only wants to rely on it with a tziruf.
Health-There also isn’t a problem of Ameiras L’acum because Cholent is the main course. So to have a Cholent on Shabbos in a crock pot (where cooking is only M’drabbonon because of electricity) would be a Tzorech Godol -where Ameira L’acum is Mutter by an Issur D’rabbonon.
I mentioned what you said over here already (see right below). Although as DY points out, there is still an Issur of bishul. I pointed that out too. Only if it’s fully cooked AND still not-cold/hot will it be muttar to tell a goy.
The problem of amira leakum is simpler. You cannot tell a goy to do a melacha for you on shabbos.
So as long as it’s not fully cooked, or it’s cold, it would be a definite Issur. I’m assuming that you can get around the amira leakum problem, though. If the chulent is fully cooked and gets turned off in middle of shabbos, if it’s still piping hot, or according to ashkenazim, not cold yet, a goy would probably be able to put turn it back on (trei derabanan letzorach mitzva).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.