Bishul Akum?

DY -“RM”A says the pots which very much sounds like that’s their Shabbos food (certainly their only hot food, which is considered a tzorech gadol).”

Exactly, it’s says pots. You have no idea whether this is Shabbos food or just any food. Also, it doesn’t say whether there was other hot food or not. Don’t put words into the S’A that it doesn’t say. If it doesn’t specify that it’s a case of Tzorech Godol, why are you assuming it is?

I’ll go out on a limb here -I think even hello99 would agree with me here!

DY -And how do you know what the “the” is refering to? Maybe it’s left over pots from Fri. nite & he’s hungry?

Bli Neder I’ll look up the B’H again. I don’t remember the case offhand.

DY: also, remember that the MB does not pasken like the Rema who allows amira l’Akum for a mitzva b’tzorech gadol. So, you can’t ask on the Rema from the Biur Halacha.

Hello99,

If you think the R’ma would be mattir bishul b’makom tzoreh gadol, now that I’ve shown you that mei’ikar hadin R’ Moshe holds like the R’ma, you should admit that Health was right that, at least according to R’ Moshe, one can tell an aku”m to cook a cholent for you (barring bishul aku”m) if you don’t have another hot food. I think you know that that’s not true.

I should point out that my diyuk is not merely from the ?, the entire context would indicate that there’s no other hot food; the reason they would move the food is because, not having gas or electric as we do, the oven often had cooled by the time the Shabbos meal would start. They didn’t have an oven, a hot plate, and a crockpot; at most they probably had a cooking oven and a heating oven.

The Biur Halacha doesn’t stop at the words “tzorech Shabbos”, he also says “v’ain lo eitzah acheres”.

DY: how do you understand the Rema 276?

The Diyuk is Not a Diyuk -so you can’t push that Pshat in the Rema.

Do you care to explain why you don’t think it’s a diyuk (which, as I explained, is the simple p’shat, in context)?

Sorry, I missed this earlier:

DY: how do you understand the Rema 276?

He’s not referring to bishul.

DY: why and on what basis would you propose differentiating between different Melachos?

DY: That Mishna Berura has absolutely no relevance to our discussion. You must have misstyped the Mareh Makom.

DY -“I’m not talking about that case. I’ll quote the R’ma which I am referring to:

??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??????? ???????? ???

???????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??”? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????”

Ok, got the case you’re talking about. A little miscommunication.

Now what about this case? What’s the problem? That’s it only Mutter because it’s warm? This isn’t talking about a Tzorech Godol. Something just happenned to occur like in my case. They (case of S’A) did this every week. This is a planned thing. It must be that the fires didn’t last that long and they worked it out with the goyim to put in on another fire. You can’t be Matir to tell the goy to do something every week and call it Tzorech Godol! That’s just misusing the Heter of Tzorech Godol. Look in the case of the Rema of Tzorech Godol -“like a Chasuna or Mila Seudah”. These don’t happen every week. Chazal would never let pushing off Ameira L’acum in a case of the S’A. That’s why you need to come onto Ain Bishul etc.

is dass yochid paid by ywn to stimulate conversation at the cr?

is dass yochid paid by ywn to stimulate conversation at the cr?

Halevai!

If you don’t mind, can you please click the “contact us” button and make that suggestion?

DY – “Yes, to turn on the lights, not to cook.

You’ll never find anyone being matir cooking al y’dei aku”m for any tzorech other than a choleh.”

I know you don’t want to agree with me, but what is the difference between one D’oraysa and another – that you say -“lights, not to cook”?

DY – Even though this is addressed to hello99 & I’m not 100% sure what you are talking about -let me take a crack at it.

Of course; this is an open forum and anyone can interject (and especially since you’re heavily involved in the discussion).

Again this was done as a L’chatchilla, not as a B’dieved!

I don’t think it was arranged like this for any other reason other than the fact that the oven cooling was sometimes unavoidable.

See Darchei Moshe 253:7 (same R’ma) who quotes the Ohr Zarua who saw in his rebbe’s home that they were mattir reheating the cholent which occasionally cooled, only because it hadn’t entirely cooled or because they (the servants) did it for themselves. (It would seem that this is the basis of the R’ma in S.A.)

See M”A (38) who quotes this D”M, and PRM”G (E”A) who comments on this and is further lenient, but stipulates that it must be a shvus d’shvus, and is muttar because shvus d’shvus is muttar l’tzorech Shabbos. Those familiar with the halachos of amira l’aku”m know that shvus d’shvus is not muttar for a snack, or to rely on l’chatchila where avoidable, only when unavoidable and for an essential Shabbos food.

It is this PRM”G which the Biur Halacha which I quoted earlier refers to – clearly, this “tzorech Shabbos” is a form of tzorech gadol. See also M”B 325:62 for the definition of tzorech Shabbos.

There is no difference between one D’oraysa and another, no matter what you say. Sitting in a lit room is having Hanaah!

I believe there is, and you haven’t addressed the chiluk between food and other types of hanaah, which the M”B (325 – 16) makes regarding hanaah from a melacha which a nochri did for himself. Even if we are mattir there, the sevara is still valid, and would account for amira being assur for bishul even where it would be assur for light.

I quoted the IG”M earlier as being mattir a nochri removing the bulb from a refrigerator so that a Jew can later remove the essential Shabbos foods. It is interesting to note that in O”C 4:74-40, he explicitly assers telling a nochri to relight the fire which went out under the pot (clearly not a l’chatchila arrangement, and most likely no other fire available) unless it’s bein hashmashos.

DY: in 276 no one distinguished between dif melachos. the MB only brought one opinion that food is more chamur. how do you know the Rema follows this opinion?

the Rema in 253 doesn not make any mention of lack of other food or other Tzorech Gadol.

the Rema in 253 doesn not make any mention of lack of other food or other Tzorech Gadol.

Lack of any other hot food is tzorech gadol, that was actually Health’s case on which this discussion began.

Now I’ll answer your other question:

one opinion that food is more chamur. how do you know the Rema follows this opinion?

I don’t know it as a fact, I’m suggesting a reason that the R’ma does not allow cooking even l’tzorech gadol. If you have a better reason, kol hakavod, but clearly he assers it.

Please read my earlier post as well, which was not yet visible when you posted.

DY -“I don’t think it was arranged like this for any other reason other than the fact that the oven cooling was sometimes unavoidable.

See Darchei Moshe 253:7 (same R’ma) who quotes the Ohr Zarua who saw in his rebbe’s home that they were mattir reheating the cholent which occasionally cooled, only because it hadn’t entirely cooled or because they (the servants) did it for themselves. (It would seem that this is the basis of the R’ma in S.A.)

See M”A (38) who quotes this D”M, and PRM”G (E”A) who comments on this and is further lenient, but stipulates that it must be a shvus d’shvus, and is muttar because shvus d’shvus is muttar l’tzorech Shabbos. Those familiar with the halachos of amira l’aku”m know that shvus d’shvus is not muttar for a snack, or to rely on l’chatchila where avoidable, only when unavoidable and for an essential Shabbos food.”

You have a problem of differentiating unavoidable and unavoidable that happens all the time. The first one would be Mutter if it’s a case of Tzorech Godol, while not the latter.

“It is this PRM”G which the Biur Halacha which I quoted earlier refers to – clearly, this “tzorech Shabbos” is a form of tzorech gadol. See also M”B 325:62 for the definition of tzorech Shabbos.”

I just explained above this type of Tzorech Godol would not be Mutter.

“I believe there is, and you haven’t addressed the chiluk between food and other types of hanaah, which the M”B (325 – 16) makes regarding hanaah from a melacha which a nochri did for himself. Even if we are mattir there, the sevara is still valid, and would account for amira being assur for bishul even where it would be assur for light.”

Could you clarify this paragraph -I don’t understand your point.

“I quoted the IG”M earlier as being mattir a nochri removing the bulb from a refrigerator so that a Jew can later remove the essential Shabbos foods. It is interesting to note that in O”C 4:74-40, he explicitly assers telling a nochri to relight the fire which went out under the pot (clearly not a l’chatchila arrangement, and most likely no other fire available).”

Who says there is no other fire available? And who says this was the main dish and there would be no main dish? In other words, again you are assuming this to be a case of Tzorech Godol -who says?

DY -“That’s true, there should be no difference, but either way, you seem to have missed the word “occasionally (lif’omim)” which means it doesn’t happen all the time.”

An unavoidable situation that happens all the time even if it doesn’t happen every single week -would Not be Mutter L’Tzorech Godol. Find other ways than Ameira L’acum to solve your problem. This is exactly why Chazal Assured Ameira L’acum in the first place.

I’ll try: The M”B says that there is more reason to be machmir on hanaah from food, because one has a strong desire for it, than from other types of hanaah.

A little more explanation, please?

“It’s not 100%, you’re right, but in most cases, the fire going out means no cholent.”

In order to bring a Raya -it has to be 100%. Btw, your case of fire going out happens all the time in EY. (Gas goes out.) And all they do is bring it to a neighbor. This is something that happens all the time. I can’t see anybody saying call a Goy. This isn’t the type of case where they said Mutter because of Tzorech Godol. They know this happens quite often.

DY: “Lack of any other hot food is tzorech gadol, that was actually Health’s case on which this discussion began”

But the Rema says no such thing. He never says they had no other food!

“I’m suggesting a reason that the R’ma does not allow cooking even l’tzorech gadol. If you have a better reason, kol hakavod, but clearly he assers it”

But he does NOT mention any problem with cooking when there is a Tzorech Gadol, so there is no need for a “better reason”.

A little more explanation, please?

We are more machmir on amira l’akum in the case of food than other types of hanaah. Unlike what you wrote, “There is no difference between one D’oraysa and another, no matter what you say. Sitting in a lit room is having Hanaah!”.

DY -“We are more machmir on amira l’akum in the case of food than other types of hanaah. Unlike what you wrote, “There is no difference between one D’oraysa and another, no matter what you say. Sitting in a lit room is having Hanaah!”.”

You are totally off the path. We are more Makpid when the Guy was Oiver a Shvus. Key word – Oiver! We Knas the guy more. This has nothing to do with saying a Tzorech Godol wouldn’t push off this Issur of cooking by Ameira L’acum. What does one thing have to so with another? What Raya, even remotely, that they wouldn’t Matir cooking by a Tzorech Godol? Stop grasping at straws just to argue with me.

Hello99:

But Reb Moshe wasn’t Matir!!!

??? ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??

????? ????? ?”? ????,?????? ???? ?? ?? ????

??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ??????

?????, ?????? ???”? ??’ ??”? ???? ?’ ???????

???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???’ ?????? ?????.

Hello99,

Sorry, I’ll respond to your post out of order (I missed it).

I think that the most straightforward understanding of case the R’ma in 253 is dealing with is that there is no other hot food (not the way you misunderstood me earlier that there’s no other food at all).

Also, in 325, he is only mattir items for tzorech Shabbos to be carried through a carmelis, not a r’shus harabim. Why not?

Also, in D”M, he is clearly talking about a tzorech Shabbos (again, see M”B that the definition is something which would be somewhat difficult to do without) and is only mattir if he did it for himself (or it was still warm).

The weight of evidence is clearly that even the R’ma would not be mattir.

I don’t think one would be required to protest if someone had the R’ma to rely on. (Although in this case, it actually wouldn’t make a difference, because it was also bishul aku”m, and, ironically that would probably make it amira l”akum as well even if the R’ma would otherwise be mattir, since there’s no tzorech to have him cook food that is assur to eat! 🙂

DY -“Your distinction between a tzorech gadol which occurs occasionally or only rarely makes no sense, and the entire 253:5 – R’ma, M”B, B”H, M”A, PM”G (including his quoting the D”M) is clear that even reheating is assur in some cases, and certainly full fledged bishul would be. I brought the M”B in 225 not as a raya, but as a possible explanation for why even the R’ma would asser by bishul.”

Yea -what’s the explanation?

I have no problem with S’A 253; the reason you do is because you don’t understand why Chazal Assured Ameira L’acum. Do you think they had nothing better to all day than Assur everything, like a lot of people in our generation & lot of posters here? Say after me -Yoshon, Yoshon, Yoshon!

They Assured Ameira L’acum because otherwise you can do any Melacha in the world by telling a Goy to do it. So they would never Matir the case of 253.

Let me simplify it for you because you are having such a hard time seeing a difference between my case & the case in 253:

Did you ever learn Dinim of a Shomer? I’m sure you know what a Shomer is, if not, tell me and I’ll explain it. Anyway a Shomer is Chayuv on Peshiah (negligence). Does this mean that when he left the guy’s crystal bowl in middle of the street and when it got run over -it was done on purpose? No, it wasn’t run over on purpose -it’s still an Oiness, but you were Posheiah (negligent). Since you acted with disregard for s’o else’s object the Oiness doesn’t protect you any more from paying/responsibility.

The same thing here. You know the gas in the balloon can run out or that the fire won’t last -so since you set it up this way to cook on Shabbos like this -this is like Peshiah. Even though the fire went out B’oiness, this type of Oiness we aren’t Matir. In my case the crock pot can burn the whole Shabbos, but you forgot to plug it in or it got unplugged. This type of mistake is called an Oiness -there was no Peshiah though. In such a case Ameira L’acum would be Mutter L’tzorech Godol!

“You claim that the Debriciner in B’er Moshe is mattir amira l’akum l’tzorech gadol – please provide a source.”

I provided the source on the page before -read my posts before responding:

“He says why you can tell the Goy to open the bathroom light in your house in ???? ?”? in the Hebrew section.” Piskei Hilchos Shabbos vol. 4.