- This topic has 13 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
R’ Moshe writes in Orach Chaim 1:124 that it’s pashut to him that a fork or a spoon is only considered a kli in regards to borer if the fork/spoon is better at the act of borer than your hand is. But if your hand can do the job just as well except that there are external factors preventing you from using your hand, a fork or spoon would be considered ???. So now let’s say that you have liquid in a bowl or cup, and something fell into it. You want to take out the thing which would be ????? ???? ????? so you have to take out some of the liquid with it. The problem is that it’s not really feasible to take out liquid with your hand. So you use a spoon. R’ Moshe specifically mentioned liquid as an example of a situation where a spoon is considered ??? (since it has no advantage over your hand in borer capabilities). However, R’ Moshe was talking about taking ???? ???? ??????. In my case, though, since it’s ????? ???? ????? and therefore you need to take out some of the liquid as well, which a hand can’t accomplish, lichora the spoon is advantageous in its borer capabilities because a spoon is capable of doing borer in a permissible way whereas a hand is not. What does the oilam tayneh? Would that be considered an advantage in borer capabilities? Or not, because it’s only a halachic advantage as opposed to a physical advantage?
Not
Mimanifshach if you are trying to take only the fly that is psoless meochel and if you want liquid too then that is bkli.
On second thought, if you are taking some of the liquid with it then it is ochel mitoch ochel, soup from soup which isn’t even considered separating and is muttar irregardless of the method performed. But since that liquid itself may now be disgusting and discarded that liquid itself should be considered psoless.
Not
The fact that you want to take out the liquid with the fly in order that the removal should not constute borer does not make the spoon be’kli because borer relates to your personal needs not to your halachical act.
The answer is in your question. ” but if your hand can do the job just as well BUT THERE ARE EXTERNAL FACTORS PREVENTING YOU””
This would be a good example of external factors.
It’s a moot point. Since you are removing ???? together with the ?????, there is no ???? at all.
The rules of ????, ???, ??? determine a permissible way to separate; in this case, there is no separation occurring.
CY, your point works for the Chazon Ish’s understanding of the Taz as well.
I don’t remember his understanding, ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???. Would you mind elaborating?
?”? ??”? ?”? says that if a fly falls into your drink, it is ???? to remove the fly unless you take it out with some of liquid.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x1575
?”? ?”? says it’s because you’re taking some ???? with the ?????.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=50327&st=&pgnum=737
???? ??? ?”? says that taking some ???? with ????? isn’t a ????, and the reason the ?”? is ???? that case is because you’re not separating at the point of mixture.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=161&hilite=
Also, see the contemporary ???? ?????? (it’s on the previous page in the ?”? I linked) who says ??? ??????? that using a spoon because your hand can’t pick up a liquid isn’t considered ????. This is what I meant, but you made a great point that we don’t Ned to come in to that for this case because it’s ???? not a ???? ????.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=50327&st=&pgnum=736
???? ???? actually assumes that the ?”? is referring to removing the insect with a spoon.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41315&st=&pgnum=184&hilite=
Interesting kasha: if one accords with Halacha and removes a spoonful of soup together with the fly, if so the soup in the spoon is lechorah total ????? !? Nobody would eat that spoonful which had a bug in it even after the bug isn’t here! It’s ????! It should be ???? as if he is removing the fly alone? (Unless you want to tayna that it’s ???? ????!)
I would.
Doubtful
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.