???? ???

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.

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.

Let’s hear 🙂

Beautifully put.

Basically you are saying that not everything which makes something “cooked” is called bishul, and even though something is not bishul there can still be a transfer of ta’am, and that will occur anytime there is a transfer of heat, although when we do not know whether or not there was a transfer of heat we will have certain rules of what we may assume. I agree.

To paraphrase R’ Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (said about R’ Chaim’s chiddushim in the Rambam), I am not sure if your p’shat in the Binas Adam is historically accurate, but I believe it is true in any case because it makes a lot of sense.

I would change one thing. You wrote – “and both become observably warm,” I would change that to “observably hot” – as in yad soledes. Otherwise it is taluy in whether you hold like the Mechaber/Rema or Maharshal etc.