Reply To: ???? ???

hello99 –

The Torah was makpid on bishul for basar b’chalav, not just ta’am. ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???. 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 ??? ??? 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.