Home › Forums › Bais Medrash › ???? ???
- This topic has 56 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by yitayningwut.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 31, 2011 2:34 am at 2:34 am #594632yitayningwutParticipant
I know this is quite obscure, but about a month ago I mentioned* a Rashba that says that the stagnant object is always the ???? and the moving one the ?????, and hello99 claimed that the halacha does not follow the Rashba. I just want to say for the record that the Shach brings it down in Siman 91, and I haven’t seen anyone arguing. I asked my rav, and he said that the halacha is indeed in accordance with the Rashba. Ok, now I can go to sleep peacefully.
*Here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/how-do-i-kasher-a-microwave
January 31, 2011 3:04 am at 3:04 am #834306popa_bar_abbaParticipantsiman 92?
January 31, 2011 3:26 am at 3:26 am #834307Pashuteh YidMemberAnybody want to explain how this fits with modern ideas of heat transfer, that do not distinguish between upper and lower levels in contact. (Heat rises when air is involved since it becomes less dense from molecular motion, and rises to the top.)
January 31, 2011 3:39 am at 3:39 am #834308jewish sourceParticipantPesachim ??: Rashi says even though generally we pasken like Rav, here people pasken like Shemuel that tatah gavar.
January 31, 2011 4:17 am at 4:17 am #834309deiyezoogerMember“Anybody want to explain how this fits with modern ideas of heat transfer, that do not distinguish between upper and lower levels in contact. (Heat rises when air is involved since it becomes less dense from molecular motion, and rises to the top.”
The question is not how the heat transfers, its how a “bliye” or trace amount of taste transfers that according to chazal is one way, meaning that while something “exports” taste it can’t “import” at the same time, so if we pasken tatah gavar then the bottom one exports and the top imports.
January 31, 2011 2:35 pm at 2:35 pm #834310yitayningwutParticipantPopa-
The Shach I referred to is in 91:23.
jewish source-
Correct. However there are different understandings as to what ???? ??? means, hence the Rashba.
deiyezooger-
Not exactly. If the bottom is hot (kli rishon) we say the heat transfers and the issur will then transfer both ways; e.g. by meat and milk they will both become assur. See the gemara quoted above by jewish source.
January 31, 2011 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #834311hello99Participantpardon my failure to respond in a timely enough fashion, I have been both very busy and not feeling well. Here are some sources that disagree with the Rashba, feel free to ask for clarification of any of them.
???’ ????? ?”?. ?”? ???, ????”? ????? ?”?. ?? ???’ ?”? ?????, ??”? ?”? ?? ???? ?’ “???? ??????”, ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? “???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???”, ??”? ?”? ?’ ??? ??”? “??? ?? ?????”, ???? ????? ???? ?”? ?’, ??”? ?”? ?’ ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????, ??”? ????? ??? ???? ?????, ???”? ?”? ?”?, ?”? ?”? ?”? ?’ ??’ ??????? ????? ????”? ??? ??? ??
?’ ??”? ?”? ?”? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????
February 1, 2011 1:16 am at 1:16 am #834312deiyezoogerMembernow this is a mans thread!
February 1, 2011 2:16 am at 2:16 am #834313popa_bar_abbaParticipantyitayningwut:
You are correct. I thought you were referring to 92:36, where he says the same thing.
February 1, 2011 4:41 am at 4:41 am #834314hello99Participantpba: only the second of the Shach’s three answers is consistant with the Rashba, the other 2 are clearly NOT.
February 1, 2011 4:47 am at 4:47 am #834315hello99Participantyitayningwut: anyways the Rashba would not help you for microwaves as the particle or droplet continues to be bombarded by waves on the wall of the microwave and is ?? ??? where we don’t say a cold ???? is ????.
February 1, 2011 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm #834316yitayningwutParticipanthello99-
I am not coming to support the reasoning I used in that thread to be matir a microwave. That was just something I’d heard and did not go into well, and my rav’s reasons for being matir in that case have nothing to do with that.
My point here was simply to say that it is incorrect to blanketly state that the halacha does not accord with the Rashba. This is for two reasons. 1) There are contemporary poskim who explicitly maintain that the halacha follows the Rashba. One such posek is my rav. 2) The Shach brings down (in the place I mentioned, and thanx Popa for your input) the pshat without bringing an argument. I know Tosafos in P’sachim is clearly not like the Rashba, and there are those who hold like that, however, ashkenazim generally follow the Shach, and though you have every right to bring a raya and argue, you cannot claim that there is some kind of halacha psukah not like him.
February 1, 2011 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #834317hello99Participantyou’re right. I should have stated that the Halacha does not NECESSARILY follow the Rashba.
February 1, 2011 7:06 pm at 7:06 pm #834318yitayningwutParticipantHello99-
I’m fine with that. And thank you for responding.
Popa-
Thanx for that other reference. To be honest I have not learned ??? ???? well yet so I don’t know that siman well enough. I am currently in the middle of ??????? which is how I came to the Shach in 91.
February 1, 2011 7:38 pm at 7:38 pm #834319hello99Participantyitayningwut: Which siman are you learning? I am currently saying shiur on 103.
February 2, 2011 12:23 am at 12:23 am #834320yitayningwutParticipant91 and 105, ???? ?????.
February 2, 2011 2:57 pm at 2:57 pm #834321rabbiofberlinParticipantFor once- this thread is truly illuminating…I am in full agreement with ‘dayazooger’ that this is a “man’s thread” (I wish there were more of these)and I stand in awe before iytai,hello99,popa and all of you who are contributing to this thread. It takes me back many years to the days of learning the sugyos in chullin and joreh deah and it gives me an incentive to go back and look at the sources again.Thank you all.
February 2, 2011 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm #834322rabbiofberlinParticipantWithout intruding upon the erudite discussion between our two “beki’im”, I have to remark upon hello99’s point that a microwave is “al ho’aish” ….where is the heat? particles being bombarded by waves a “kli rishon” do not make. I would imagine this is the cornerstone of the arguments between those who are mattir a microwave for everything (iytai?) and those who maintain that it is a “kli rishon” (al ho’iash, which makes it even more chomur). I have felt the inner walls of a microwave countless of times just after heating food and never did it show any significant amount of heat.Please explain why this should be ever considered as kli rishon or aish.
February 2, 2011 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #834323yitayningwutParticipantrabbiofberlin-
Thank you for your kind words and I am glad you feel inspired.
The truth is I am not sure at the moment what my rav’s reasoning for being matir a microwave for everything is, though I don’t think it has to do with the ???? ??? argument. I will try to look up the teshuva iy”h and post it soon, and I can ask him if there’s a question.
Regarding ?? ???: I don’t fully understand the metzi’us hello99 mentioned about the waves. However I wish to point out that this halacha that when the ????? is ?? ??? it is worse than a regular ???? ???? comes from the Ran (not in front of me but I think it’s 41b in the dafei haRif), who proves this halacha from the fact that the Gemara (Pesachim 76a) says that ???? ???? doesn’t become assur due to the fact that it cools off the top. Says the Ran, where it cannot cool it off because it is still on the fire, you do not have the ???? of the Gemara, and even a case of ???? ???? will be assur. This being the reasoning, ?????? one would be right to assume that one could not differentiate between the locations of any food particles in a microwave, because ?????? one could make the same argument that even if the walls are cold they do not have the power to cool off any of the particles being “bombarded by the waves,” inasmuch as the Ran makes this argument by ?? ???. Therefore in principle I don’t see that hello99 is incorrect.
February 2, 2011 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #834324rabbiofberlinParticipantyitay- My point is that ,if there is no real heat- certainly not “jad soledes bo” (which is, at least, 145 degrees), then there is absolutely no reason to say that there are any “bliyot” in the microwave. regardless of your understanding of the psak of ilo-oh or taso-oh govar, there is no heat to include this kind of cooking in the field of “cooking”.
February 2, 2011 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #834325yitayningwutParticipantEven if there is no real heat, as long as there is a food item which is hot that touches the wall, it can be ????? (provided the wall has the properties of something capable of being ????, as opposed to something like glass) and at the point it touches it be considered still ?? ???, for the wall will not cool it off as long as the microwave is still on.
Are you saying that nothing heated up in a microwave can reach ?? ????? ??? Because while I hear that in regard to the walls, it is hard for me to believe that regarding the food you heat up.
February 2, 2011 9:51 pm at 9:51 pm #834326TheGoqParticipantyitay are u having a better day today? i hope so 🙂
February 2, 2011 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #834327hello99ParticipantROB: bishul needs the ????? ?????? of a ??? ?????,however ??? ?? ??? does not. The food in a microwave would be more similar to ??? because it receives its heat by direct radiation.
February 2, 2011 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #834328yitayningwutParticipantYup:) Thanx Goq
February 2, 2011 10:22 pm at 10:22 pm #834329rabbiofberlinParticipantyitai- The food itself may reach the temperature of “bishul’ but it is absolutely not in touch with anything else,certainly not the walls-especially if the food is covered (as it should be) No food ever touches the walls and I do not believe that the walls ever reach a temperature even near ‘bishul’.
hello99- I am not sure how ‘zeli aish’ helps you here. Basically, the argument about microwaves is ,very simply, whether you can use the same oven for both fleishig and milchig (leave pessach aside for now) Especially if you cover the food, I cannot see any reason why not to use it for that purpose.
February 2, 2011 11:33 pm at 11:33 pm #834330hello99Participantrob: “The food itself may reach the temperature of “bishul’ but it is absolutely not in touch with anything else”
I’m referring to the particles and droplets of condensation stuck to the walls and roof of the microwave.
February 3, 2011 1:22 am at 1:22 am #834331rabbiofberlinParticipanthello99- i always cover any food I put in the microwave (unless it is totally parve,like bread or a potato) Condensation does not appear in these circumstances. The only condensation you may see is from an open cup of water as it gest heated, thereby manufacturing steam. IF you would put a plate of soup- uncovered- in the microwave, you might have condensation and hence, if it is chicken soup, they stick to the walls. It still is a question whether the walls are hot enough to absorb it, and maybe that the condesantion just sticks to it, without being absorbed. (remember kdei kelipah)
February 3, 2011 7:20 am at 7:20 am #834332hello99Participantrob: if your microwave is spotless I am very impressed. I was not referring to unique people like you. Most microwaves that have not been cleaned very recently have pieces and spots on the walls and ceiling. Those objects literally boil on the surface of the oven.
November 30, 2011 9:29 pm at 9:29 pm #834333hello99Participantback to ???? ???:
what would you say if the hot bottom item was tiny and 1 degree above yad soledes and the top one was huge and frozen solid?
Does ???? ??? tell us that the top one is hot despite our observation to the contrary, has a din kli rishon when observed hot, or can be presumed hot when we don’t know?
December 1, 2011 2:32 am at 2:32 am #834334yitayningwutParticipantHey, you found this! I was just going to link it to Popa!
December 1, 2011 2:40 am at 2:40 am #834335yitayningwutParticipanthello99 –
Here’s what I have written in my notes relevant to this question:
???? ??”? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???, ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? (???? ???? ??’ ?? ?”?) ??? ?????? ??? ????. ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???”? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??”?. ?? ???? ???”? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????, ?? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ?????, ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????. ???? ?? ???? ?”? ???”? ?????”?
??”? ????”? (???? ?? ???? ??): ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????, ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ??????, ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ??’, ??”?. ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????”?
Also, the Aruch Hashulchan in 105 writes as follows:
???? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??”? ????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???, ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???, ??”? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??”? ??? ???? ???. ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? [?????? ?????] ???? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????, ????? ???? ??”? ???’ ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???. ????? ??? ??, ??”? ?”? ???? ??? ??? ???, ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????, ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????, ??? ??????? ??? ?????, ??”?
December 1, 2011 10:42 pm at 10:42 pm #834336hello99ParticipantGood. To summarize your position, you are suggesting that ???? ??? only applies when the top object actually becomes hot. Correct?
In addition to the Aruch HaShulchan you quoted, this is also the view of the Da’as Kedoshim 91:4, andclearlyy implied in the Yam Shel Shlomo 7:45 and many other Achronim.
Now if ???? ??? is primarily a ??????, what would say to this follow-up.
What if the top item was the hot one, and we clearly see that it significantly warmed the bottom one, maybe even reaching ?? ??????
December 2, 2011 12:16 am at 12:16 am #834338yitayningwutParticipantIf it is certain that it reached yad soledes I would say misvara that it is assur. Otherwise we can assume it didn’t reach that temperature, because that gufa is the machlokes Rav and Shmuel – what may we assume when we do not know for sure.
December 2, 2011 10:24 am at 10:24 am #834339hello99ParticipantDo you have a source that explains Rav and Shmuel that way. It is a huge Chiddush. I don’t disagree, I just suggested the same in a Shiur a gave this week, but couldn’t find any supporting source. In fact, the Binas Adam 48 clearly does not learn this way. He writes that a red hot milchig pan placed on raw meat does make it Assur because ???? ???.
In fact, it creates a huge problem. If we don’t require a Din of Kli Rishon, why wouldn’t a Kli Sheini Yad Soledes Bo or Iruyi be Mevashel the entire item if we see it became hot. The Beis Yosef on 105:2 writes that there is never Bishul w/o Kli Rishon, implying a “Din” is necessary.
I have a partial answer for this as well, but I want to hear what you think.
December 4, 2011 12:44 am at 12:44 am #834340yitayningwutParticipanthello99 –
I have been out of the sugya for a bit and want to check over my notes before I answer you. Bl”n within the next day or two.
December 4, 2011 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #834341yitayningwutParticipantI agree that it sounds like a chiddush, but apparently you came to a similar conclusion, so it probably has some sense to it.
Here is my train of thought; you can tell me what you think of it:
????? ???. ?????? ????, ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ????.
???? ???? ???? ??? ? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????. ????? ???????? [???] ???? ????? [?????] ??. ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???, ??? ??? ????, ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??. ?????? ??”? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?”?. ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???, ??? ????, ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ???? ??”?.
We therefore see that the Rema held like Rashi.
B) The Ramban in the sugya of ???? ??? writes (Chullin 108b at the end of ?”? ???? ??’):
??? ???? ??? ????, ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???????: ??? ????”? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????, ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????, ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???. ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????. ???????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????, ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???. ????????, ????? ??????, ????? ?? ????? ???? ???, ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????, ??? ?????? ???????? ?”? ???? ?????? ??????? ??, ?? ???? ??.
Question 1: When he writes “????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????” he is still willing to say that the ???? ??? is assur. Why?
C) What was the machlokes Rav and Shmuel; was it a machlokes in dinei ?????? or a machlokes in dinei heat?
Since it seems clear ??? ????? that it is a machlokes in dinei heat, it seems pashut to me that Rav and Shmuel are not arguing in a case where the cold one is still freezing cold.
D) Where are they arguing then? I think the answer is in a case where we cannot tell, or the situation has already passed. Rav says the metzius is ????? ??? and therefore we assume only the top will heat up the bottom; Shmuel says ???? ??? and we assume only the bottom will heat up the top.
E) All of this is of course only ????? ??????, but ????? ????? we already know that there is no ????? in anything other than a ??? ?????.
December 4, 2011 8:01 pm at 8:01 pm #834342yitayningwutParticipantBy the way I am not evading your comments on the microwave thread, I just need time to be ????? another relevant teshuva.
December 4, 2011 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #834343ZeesKiteParticipantCould I pose a question for you Halachah Technicians out there. Maybe this is the place maybe not, pardon. Here goes;
Is there a problem pouring hot water from an electric urn, parve into a COFFEE cup that has milk? Does that make the urn milchig?
December 4, 2011 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #834344yitayningwutParticipantI just want to add that now that I have seen the Aruch Hashulchan I believe that he held the same way.
Also, about a point you made on the other thread that the Aruch Hashulchan only agrees to the Chamudei Daniel by solids, if you see the lason I quoted above (the final paragraph ?”? ???? ??), you’ll notice that he only agrees to the Chamudei Daniel by by runny foods; by a solid he is even more meikil. IOW the chiddush of the CD is that the halacha in principle even pertains to a ??? ????, but the AH’s chiddush of ?? ?????? is only said l’gabei a ??? ???.
December 4, 2011 10:14 pm at 10:14 pm #834345hello99Participantyitay: nice chabura. I thought something a little simpler.
1) It seems Pashut to me that it is impossible to have either Bishul or Bliyos in something that remains very cold. Therefore, while I have numerous proofs that the Sugya must be discussing where both ended up hot, I think they are superfluous.
2) There are 2 possible ways of explaining ???? ???, in my opinion. Either the dispute relates to the Metzius of whether the cold one became hot or not, or it is assumed hot and the dispute is whether it has a Din Bishul similar to a Kli Rishon or no Din Bishul similar to a Kli Sheini.
That will have to wait for a different day.
December 4, 2011 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm #834346hello99Participantyitay: regarding the Aruch HaShulchan, I must disagree. He writes ??”? ?”? ???? ??? ??? ??? with liquid it is Mamash instantaneous. He only agrees for solid, and quantifies the time span at ?? ??????
December 4, 2011 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm #834347hello99ParticipantZeesKite: it may be done without any problem, and the urn remains Pareve. Provided you are VERY careful the milk does not splatter on the urn.
Do you want detailed sources?
December 4, 2011 11:34 pm at 11:34 pm #834348yitayningwutParticipantZeesKite –
I agree with hello99, it is not a problem.
hello99 –
The Aruch Hashulchan doesn’t mean that the ?????? occur ???, he means that the ???? ???? has to be ???, otherwise the ????? will happen right after! That’s how I understood it anyway. The whole diyyuk of the Chamudei Daniel is that since Rashi says ???? ???? ??? it must be that there’s a moment where there are no ?????? yet. And on that the Aruch Hashulchan says ???? ??? ??.
As for your shtickel:
1) I agree.
2) See 4.
3) I suggest it is what to presume when we didn’t see the temperature at the time.
That is very similar to what I am saying. I agree, and I like how you are explaining it.
4) It is hard for me to digest that there is something called a din bishul. Bishul is a metzius that isn’t just ?????? and ?????? but a chemical change in the makeup of the item. Chazal said that the metzius is bishul doesn’t happen in less than a k’li rishon.
To answer your quesion therefore, the Chavos Da’as and the P’ri Megadim might hold that the red hot plate is mevashel because they hold it never loses its status of k’li rishon (IIRC the Chavos Da’as says this by the Rema that says keilim are also subject to ???? ???). A k’li sheini, though it can be ????? if we lema’aseh see it heated up the other item, it can never be mevashel.
December 5, 2011 2:56 am at 2:56 am #834349ZeesKiteParticipanthello99 –
So there’s no vapor that goes back up into the urn?
December 5, 2011 3:48 am at 3:48 am #834350yitayningwutParticipantZeesKite –
I cannot answer for hello99, but that is correct. We don’t say that vapor goes back up into the urn.
December 5, 2011 6:42 am at 6:42 am #834351hello99Participantcorrect, unless you see a cloud of milk vapor rising to the urn. While Shulchan Aruch 105:3 mentions such a concept,it is not relevant to this case. Only pouring cold into hot. Even then, it is only a questionable chumra
December 6, 2011 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #834352hello99ParticipantSo, even if ???? ??? certainly heated the cold item, there would still be a necessity to determine its Halachic status.
December 7, 2011 6:34 pm at 6:34 pm #834353hello99Participantyitayningwut: you there?
December 7, 2011 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #834354yitayningwutParticipanthello99 –
Listen, either way we have to say a chiddush. I admit it’s a chiddush to say that nothing other than a kli rishon can cause the metzius of bishul, but saying that there is such a thing as a “din bishul” is a tremendous chiddush in my opinion, and if we have to choose, a bigger dochek. Because why in the world would there be such a thing as a “din bishul”? Why wouldn’t we look at the metzius? Who made up this “din bishul” and what pasuk was it learned from, that we can take these mi’doraisa halachos and just say they don’t apply based on it? I’d rather be madcheh all of your kashyos than say that, and come out lemayseh that the metzius which is called bishul does not occur in anything other than a kli rishon, unless you have a raya to your chiddush that isn’t just an ela mai.
December 7, 2011 10:53 pm at 10:53 pm #834355hello99ParticipantIsn’t the Tur at the beginning of YD 87 the ?? ???? ??? requires ??? ????? sufficient? Isn’t the Halacha that a piece of metal heated in a fire is Chayav on Shabbos, but the same piece heated to the same temperature in the sum is not, enough?
I think there is very conclusive proof that Bishul in the Torah is more than a chemical reaction.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.