Reply To: ???? ???

hello99 –

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 ????? ?????? ?????, 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 ???? 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 ?? ????. 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 ?????? 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 ???? any possible way that ?????? 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 ???? is hot, we mean it in metzius, not just in din. Because the halacha of ???? ??? is not limited to ??? ????, 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, ??? ??? ????? it’s assur.