- This topic has 363 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
DY -“And as to your accusations that I and hello99 are either out to asser or to argue with you, I will point out that you negius is much stronger – you actually (it seems from your posts) were oiver on amira l’akum and bishul aku”m and are desperately trying to defend yourself.
I, on the other hand, and probably hello99 as well, came to the conclusion that it would be assur to ask a nochri to do melacha d’oraiso, even for the only available cholent, well before this topic ever”
The funniest thing about your post claiming I’m the one with Negious, not you two, is that he (hello99) learns S’A 253 like me, not like you! So you and him are trying desperately to defend your Shitta! So stop grasping at straws by claiming this Seif of S’A disagrees (253) or by saying – find me one Poisek that Matirs besides for Choileh, etc. If you have a RAYA that I’m wrong – by all means post it, until then stop with the semantics!
Hello99,
Even if he were not a da’as yochid (as I suspect he’s not, based on IG”M, and based on cases brought in R’ Yitzchak Zilberstein’s sefer on amira l’akum in which he’s mattir a d’oraiso (kavod habrios is one – he is mattir having a non-Jew fix a toilet if water cannot be brought in), one still cannot extrapolate from one case to another. The Mogen Avraham says this regarding a shvus (307:7) and it would certainly apply to a d’oraiso.
The R’ma in 328 allows bishul al y’dei aku”m for a child who has no other food, because a child has a din of a choleh. If the R’ma were mattir a d’oraiso for the mitzvah of oneg Shabbos, this would be true even for a healthy adult.
I’m not sure how you learn R’ Moshe’s refrigerator teshuva that you don’t agree that he was mattir a d’oraiso for a specific tzorech gadol, but I certainly agree that he would not be mattir bishul just because you need a cholent for Shabbos.
DY: “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, you are confusing Tzorech Shabbos, which you correctly quote MB325:62 as “somewhat difficult to do without” with Tzorech Gadol. Th Rema was not Matir Tzorech Shabbos but was Tzorech Gadol, even for food.
“I don’t think one would be required to protest if someone had the R’ma to rely on”
See the Aruch HaShulchan I quoted above that you must.
“Although in this case, it actually wouldn’t make a difference, because it was also bishul aku”m”
Unless it was k’Ma’achal ben Drusai before Shabbos, which is most likely the case.
Again, you are confusing Tzorech Shabbos, which you correctly quote MB325:62 as “somewhat difficult to do without” with Tzorech Gadol.
As I said earlier, there are (at least) two levels of tzorech gadol; Health’s case was one of not having cholent, which would be the lower one which is called tzorech or kavod Shabbos, and subject to all of the dinim in 253, 325, and 328.
Again, R’ Moshe seems to feel that even important Shabbos foods reach the criteria of “tzorech gadol”; he says that if the “ikar ma’achalei Shabbos” are in a refrigerator, one can ask a nochri to remove the bulb so that the Yid can later get the food. It’s possible to learn that R’ Moshe’s tzorech gadol is that he’s afraid that a Yid will open the fridge, turning on the light, and be oiver on havarah d’oraiso if the nochri doesn’t remove the bulb, and that this concern is only if the main foods are there, but this is not the pashtus in this teshuva.
“I don’t think one would be required to protest if someone had the R’ma to rely on”
See the Aruch HaShulchan I quoted above that you must.
One can rely on R’ Moshe not to protest.
Unless it was k’Ma’achal ben Drusai before Shabbos, which is most likely the case.
Health intimated earlier that it was raw.
That being the case, besides for the issurim of amira l’aku”m and bishul aku”m, I think there’s a third issur of muktzeh (unless in your 150 pages of mareh m’komos on muktzeh someone holds that if you thought food was cooked, it’s not muktzeh even though it was actually raw). Only the meat might not be a problem (I think some contemporary poskim hold raw meat is muktzeh because it’s no longer common to eat raw meat).
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?
Read the M”B; someone who pakens shailos by himself surely can read and understand a M”B.
Say after me -Yoshon, Yoshon, Yoshon!
I did not follow the Yoshon discussion, but I’m not sure if you’re making a basic mistake in assuming Yoshon was assered by Chaza”l; it is in fact, d’oraiso.
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.
They did set it up to last; occasionally (as the Darchei Moshe says), it would go out.
In my case the crock pot can burn the whole Shabbos, but you forgot to plug it in or it got unplugged.
You should have plugged it in and made sure the plug was secure. Big peshia! (I’m arguing l’shitoscha; your whole point is irrelevant and invented.)
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.
I don’t have access to that sefer, and even so, kavod habrios is bigger than your cholent; if you disagree, you’ll need to bring a raya.
You also claimed that he addresses it in B’er Moshe, which I do have access to, but for some reason you have not been able to provide that source.
If you have a RAYA that I’m wrong – by all means post it, until then stop with the semantics!
I have brought several; even if you erroneously think there’s a difference between your case and 253, you need to explain the R’ma in 328. You should also check out Aruch Hashulchan 34 – 36, who learns the R’ma distiction between a food which had cooled and one still warm, as applying to kavod Shabbos, and a mitzvah which would be muttar in a case of shvus d’shvus, but NOT a d’oraiso.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9101&st=&pgnum=47
Hello99 and I are mostly arguing semantics (the term tzorech gadol vs. tzorech Shabbos), and whether one, in theory one would have to protest. We agree, however, that what you did was clearly assur according to all shittos we follow (and I think even according to the shittos we don’t follow).
DY – “That being the case, besides for the issurim of amira l’aku”m and bishul aku”m, I think there’s a third issur of muktzeh (unless in your 150 pages of mareh m’komos on muktzeh someone holds that if you thought food was cooked, it’s not muktzeh even though it was actually raw). Only the meat might not be a problem (I think some contemporary poskim hold raw meat is muktzeh because it’s no longer common to eat raw meat).”
Even though this post isn’t addressed to me -I had to comment.
Your posts are getting funnier and funnier. Now Muktzeh and soon you will telling me what I did was Chillul Shabbos D’oraysa.
Do you really expect anybody to take your words seriously?
Did you ever learn the Halachos of Muktzeh?
I won’t even answer this because it’s too amusing.
DY -“Read the M”B; someone who pakens shailos by himself surely can read and understand a M”B.”
Oh, I read it and he is explaining why it’s Ossur to eat a Goy’s food even if he cooked it for himself. I was wondering what this had to do with Ameira L’acum by Tzorech Godol. I guess nothing – that’s why you answered the way you did. Pulling rabbits out of hats is not going to Prove me wrong.
“I did not follow the Yoshon discussion, but I’m not sure if you’re making a basic mistake in assuming Yoshon was assered by Chaza”l; it is in fact, d’oraiso.”
Yup, you are right -that’s exactly what I hold; NOT!
Funny you didn’t read my posts over there, but you are telling me what I hold! Are you a Novi or something? Bezman Shchorov Bais Hamikdash -Nitnoh Nevious etc.
“They did set it up to last; occasionally (as the Darchei Moshe says), it would go out.”
It has to be set up that Al Pi Teva it will always last, not sometimes the fire will go out or sometimes the gas will go out. This is putting yourself into a Matzif of Tzorech Godol -which Chazal would never Matir! Such a simple concept, but either you aren’t grasping it or you don’t want to grasp it.
“You should have plugged it in and made sure the plug was secure. Big peshia! (I’m arguing l’shitoscha; your whole point is irrelevant and invented.)”
Who said it wasn’t secured in the outlet? Or you thought you plugged it in, but you didn’t?
“I don’t have access to that sefer,”
That’s not my problem. I’m sure you could order it.
“and even so, kavod habrios is bigger than your cholent; if you disagree, you’ll need to bring a raya”
We actually had this discussion on the previous page. And I answered you over there. Check it out!
“You also claimed that he addresses it in B’er Moshe, which I do have access to, but for some reason you have not been able to provide that source.”
I think it’s there also, but I’m like you -I don’t want to go searching for it. I already see he is Matir in the PHS!
“I have brought several; even if you erroneously think there’s a difference between your case and 253, you need to explain the R’ma in 328.”
Look not one of your so-called “Rayos” is even remotely Oisgehalten. As far as 328, you gotta be a little specific on what your Raya is!
“You should also check out Aruch Hashulchan 34 – 36, who learns the R’ma distiction between a food which had cooled and one still warm, as applying to kavod Shabbos, and a mitzvah which would be muttar in a case of shvus d’shvus, but NOT a d’oraiso.”
Now which case are you talking about – the case of Tzorech Godol or 253?
“Hello99 and I are mostly arguing semantics (the term tzorech gadol vs. tzorech Shabbos), and whether one, in theory one would have to protest.”
At least you’re Modeh B’miksas!
“We agree, however, that what you did was clearly assur according to all shittos we follow (and I think even according to the shittos we don’t follow).”
What’s the Chiddush here? This I know from the beginning that you both disagree -I’m still waiting for a Raya! Just because you both say you’re right -doesn’t make you right -only in your minds!
Do you really expect anybody to take your words seriously?
No, but at least take the words of the Mishna Berurah seriously.
?? ?????? . ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????
Maybe your potatoes, beans and barley are edible raw?
Oh, I read it and he is explaining why it’s Ossur to eat a Goy’s food even if he cooked it for himself.
??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????
????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???
Yup, you are right -that’s exactly what I hold; NOT!
??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???-????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???-???????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????????????.
Who said it wasn’t secured in the outlet? Or you thought you plugged it in, but you didn’t?
You.
“I don’t have access to that sefer,”
That’s not my problem. I’m sure you could order it.
Are you sponsoring?
“and even so, kavod habrios is bigger than your cholent; if you disagree, you’ll need to bring a raya”
We actually had this discussion on the previous page. And I answered you over there. Check it out!
No answer there. If you think there was, please quote or link to the post.
“You also claimed that he addresses it in B’er Moshe, which I do have access to, but for some reason you have not been able to provide that source.”
I think it’s there also, but I’m like you -I don’t want to go searching for it.
The difference is, you claim you saw it there.
As far as 328, you gotta be a little specific on what your Raya is!
I was; I’ll repeat:
The R’ma in 328 allows bishul al y’dei aku”m for a child who has no other food, because a child has a din of a choleh. If the R’ma were mattir a d’oraiso for the mitzvah of oneg Shabbos, this would be true even for a healthy adult.
“You should also check out Aruch Hashulchan 34 – 36, who learns the R’ma distiction between a food which had cooled and one still warm, as applying to kavod Shabbos, and a mitzvah which would be muttar in a case of shvus d’shvus, but NOT a d’oraiso.”
Now which case are you talking about – the case of Tzorech Godol or 253?
Look it up. My point is that 253 is the same “tzorech gadol” you had.
At least you’re Modeh B’miksas!
???
Just because you both say you’re right -doesn’t make you right -only in your minds!
How many times are you going to say that?
hello99 -Thank you, except for some of it -where we disagree.
DY -“Do you really expect anybody to take your words seriously?
No, but at least take the words of the Mishna Berurah seriously.
?? ?????? . ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????”
Maybe your potatoes, beans and barley are edible raw?”
Please, I really shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but the MB says the Mechaber doesn’t hold of this Taam. But I can even say Pshat acc. to those that do. Because who is doing the cooking? The goy is. In my case it’s the Jew. I think you can figure out the rest. If not, post this and I’ll go into the basic details of Muktzah.
??? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??” ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????”
????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ???”
Oh? I really like when you write in Hebrew and your point is????
Like I said there is no Tzorech Godol here and that’s why they are Goizer whether the Goy cooked it for you or he cooked it for himself. They don’t want you getting around the Melechas Shabbos of cooking. But this Sevara doesn’t apply in my case.
“Yup, you are right -that’s exactly what I hold; NOT!
??????? ??????? ????????? ??? ???????? ???-????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????????? ???-???????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????????????.”
I love the Hebrew again. Look up -I said “NOT!”
“Who said it wasn’t secured in the outlet? Or you thought you plugged it in, but you didn’t?
You.”
Let me explain -Secured means I put it in tightly. Where I said it was Mutter was either it wasn’t plugged in at all or s/o tripped over it and pulled it out. This is an Oiness. The only case I could see that would be similar to 253 – would be if s/o put the plug in very loosely and it fell out.
“Are you sponsoring?”
Why don’t you go to a Yeshiva or neighbor and try and borrow one? I’m not in the business of getting people Seforim. I don’t have too many myself.
“No answer there. If you think there was, please quote or link to the post.”
Here it is again from two pages ago –
“Health, You can’t extrapolate oneg Shabbos (cholent) from kavod habrios.”
I didn’t. You didn’t read my whole post:
“But he says/brings many cases of Ameira L’acum that he is Matir in situations of Tzorech Godol. Check it out!”
“I think it’s there also, but I’m like you -I don’t want to go searching for it.
The difference is, you claim you saw it there.”
I never said I saw it there. The PHS brings it down. What he says over there I don’t really know. He just says look up the Baer Moshe -Kuntrus Electric.
“I was; I’ll repeat:
The R’ma in 328 allows bishul al y’dei aku”m for a child who has no other food, because a child has a din of a choleh. If the R’ma were mattir a d’oraiso for the mitzvah of oneg Shabbos, this would be true even for a healthy adult.”
Tzorech Shabbos is Not Tzorech Godol!
“Look it up. My point is that 253 is the same “tzorech gadol” you had.”
Wrong again! 253 is a case of Peshiah.
“At least you’re Modeh B’miksas!
???”
That you argue semantics!
“How many times are you going to say that?”
As long as it takes -as long as it takes.
the MB says the Mechaber doesn’t hold of this Taam.
Because we don’t have to assume it was raw, but raw, inedible foods are muktzah.
Because who is doing the cooking? The goy is. In my case it’s the Jew.
I misunderstood your case; if you did the cooking, then I guess you were oiver an issur d’oraiso.
“But he says/brings many cases of Ameira L’acum that he is Matir in situations of Tzorech Godol. Check it out!”
As I said, there was no answer.
Tzorech Shabbos is Not Tzorech Godol!
Then I guess you didn’t have a tzorech gadol.
Hello99,
I’m not sure where you get your parameters of levels 1 & 2. I have it differently, and I’ll provide sources.
I would there fore break down the levels as follows:
1) Things which although might enhance oneg Shabbos, are not essential. For these, not even a shvus d’shvus is permitted.
Some or all of these cases would be muttar according to the R’ma.
DY -“the MB says the Mechaber doesn’t hold of this Taam.
Because we don’t have to assume it was raw, but raw, inedible foods are muktzah.
Because who is doing the cooking? The goy is. In my case it’s the Jew.”
What – you don’t know basic Halachos of Muktza? When the Goy is cooking the food it’s not on your mind so it’s Muktza. If you cook it (even through a goy) then it’s on your mind and it’s not Muktza. Just as a Raya that your writing Shtus -the PHS writes Vol. 3 Chap.6 #18 (E) -“The food in the crock pot must be completely cooked or completely raw -i.e. -the raw food should be placed in the pot as close as possible to Shabbos.”
What happened to Muktza? How can you eat this food?
“I misunderstood your case; if you did the cooking, then I guess you were oiver an issur d’oraiso.”
Ha Ha -You’re a stand up comic. ROTFL! Then again all your “Halacha” posts are very funny/amusing.
“But he says/brings many cases of Ameira L’acum that he is Matir in situations of Tzorech Godol. Check it out!”
“As I said, there was no answer.”
The Debrecener brings other cases of Tzorech Godol which pushes off Ameira L’acum even where the Melecha is D’oraysa! Not just by Kovod Habrious!
“If the R’ma were mattir a d’oraiso for the mitzvah of oneg Shabbos, this would be true even for a healthy adult.”
It is true in a case of Tzorech Godol, but the case of the Koton is just a Tzorech, not a Tzorech Godol. If the case was what you are presuming that the Koton is starving -then this would be – Sakana Nefoshos. A little kid can’t fast a whole day. The case is talking about the kid is being picky – even so Ameira L’acum is Mutter because a kid has a Din of a Choleh Shain Bo Sakana. The way you learn up S’A is amazing. You put in Pshat into cases that it doesn’t say and then you use them as Rayos to say I’m wrong.
How could you say that the Koton really has nothing else to eat, but this isn’t considered Pikuach Nefesh?
“Tzorech Shabbos is Not Tzorech Godol!
Then I guess you didn’t have a tzorech gadol.”
Sometimes Tzorech Shabbos can be Tzorech Godol -like in my case, but not all the time!
“The food in the crock pot must be completely cooked or completely raw -i.e. -the raw food should be placed in the pot as close as possible to Shabbos.”
What happened to Muktza? How can you eat this food?
The food was put on the fire before Shabbos, so it’s not muktzah. In your case, since food was not on a fire, and it’s assur to ask a nochri to cook it, it’s muktzah.
I’m not sure why you needed to quote the PHS; this is the basic halacha of “kidra chayso” in S.A. 253:1.
The Debrecener brings other cases of Tzorech Godol which pushes off Ameira L’acum even where the Melecha is D’oraysa! Not just by Kovod Habrious!
Are any of them to cook a cholent?
How could you say that the Koton really has nothing else to eat, but this isn’t considered Pikuach Nefesh?
Excellent! You were m’chavein to the Chazon Ish’s question (59:4).
Sometimes Tzorech Shabbos can be Tzorech Godol -like in my case, but not all the time!
What was so unique about your case that it was more of a tzorech than any other case of not having a cholent, in which all the poskim are only mattir a shvus d’shvus?
DY -“The food was put on the fire before Shabbos, so it’s not muktzah. In your case, since food was not on a fire, and it’s assur to ask a nochri to cook it, it’s muktzah.”
Ah- please, we are talking about Muktza here – nothing to do with a fire. At the time Shabbos came in was the food raw or not? Yes it was -so why isn’t it Muktza acc. to you?
The only P’shat that makes sense is like me!
DY -“Are any of them to cook a cholent?”
I dunno. I haven’t seen every one of his Teshuvos.
DY -“Excellent! You were m’chavein to the Chazon Ish’s question (59:4).”
So what’s his answer?
“What was so unique about your case that it was more of a tzorech than any other case of not having a cholent, in which all the poskim are only mattir a shvus d’shvus?”
I already answered you that the cases I’ve seen in S’A are talking about a Peshiah -so you can’t use the excuse of Tzorech Godol. If it’s a 100% Oiness then you could use the excuse of Tzorech Godol. (Like in my case.)
Maybe you could ask on the Rema’s case of lighting where R. Moshe learns that they had the Goy come in to light the Shul and this was planned. How does R. Moshe’s Pshat agree with S’A 253?
At the time Shabbos came in was the food raw or not? Yes it was -so why isn’t it Muktza acc. to you?
I don’t understand your point; are you claiming that raw, inedible food is not muktzeh?
I dunno. I haven’t seen every one of his Teshuvos.
Then you have no right to extrapolate to your case, as per the M”A I quoted earlier.
So what’s his answer?
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14336&st=&pgnum=173&hilite=
“What was so unique about your case that it was more of a tzorech than any other case of not having a cholent, in which all the poskim are only mattir a shvus d’shvus?”
I already answered you that the cases I’ve seen in S’A are talking about a Peshiah -so you can’t use the excuse of Tzorech Godol.
That doesn’t answer my question.
DY -“I don’t understand your point; are you claiming that raw, inedible food is not muktzeh?”
When you plan on using this raw food -it’s not Muktza.
Did you ever learn Hilchos Muktza?
“Then you have no right to extrapolate to your case, as per the M”A I quoted earlier.”
I have every right.
“one still cannot extrapolate from one case to another. The Mogen Avraham says this regarding a shvus (307:7) and it would certainly apply to a d’oraiso.”
Another misinterpretation on your part! I’ll even explain why! What’s the problem with learning one Shvus to another? Simple because not every Shvus has the same reason why it’s Ossur -so you can’t learn one from another. On the other hand -if something is a D’oraysa and the Goy can do this D’oraysa for a Jew on Shabbos, then they can do any D’oraysa for the Jew as long as the circumstances didn’t change.
“That doesn’t answer my question.”
And I thought I did! If You Want to Clearly Elaborate what you mean -I’ll try to explain it better.
When you plan on using this raw food -it’s not Muktza.</em.
Even if you’re not allowed to use it, and your plan was based on an error in thinking you were?
What’s the problem with learning one Shvus to another? Simple because not every Shvus has the same reason why it’s Ossur -so you can’t learn one from another.
I’ll grant you that problem, (and I’ve already demonstrated that there’s a sevara to be mechalek between ,food and other items) but there’s another problem as well; not every tzorech is the same. See M”B 307:23 where the distinction is not in the issur, but in the tzorech (which mitzvah).
And I thought I did! If You Want to Clearly Elaborate what you mean -I’ll try to explain it better.
Go ahead.
DY -“Even if you’re not allowed to use it, and your plan was based on an error in thinking you were?”
I don’t know what you’re saying here -in my case there is No Issur -not Ameira L’acum, not Bishul A’cum and definitely not Muktza.
If you did have a case of some cooking that is Ossur to eat -then the Muktza should fall into the category of Kli Shmelachto L’issur.
“I’ll grant you that problem, (and I’ve already demonstrated that there’s a sevara to be mechalek between ,food and other items)”
So you aren’t really granting me anything because you still think your Sevaros apply in this case.
“but there’s another problem as well; not every tzorech is the same. See M”B 307:23 where the distinction is not in the issur, but in the tzorech (which mitzvah).”
Why must you grasp at straws? This is Not the way to prove s/o else wrong!
#23 is going on the Mechaber of “V’yesh Oisrin”. The very next line – the Rema argues. So you’re trying to “prove” me wrong by a Shitta that argues on the Shitta I’m Soimeach on. I think I’m a little, tiny bit smarter than that.
“Go ahead.”
I’d go ahead if you explain me why you don’t understand. To me it’s very clear cut!
I don’t know what you’re saying here -in my case there is No Issur -not Ameira L’acum, not Bishul A’cum and definitely not Muktza.
It might only be muktzah because of the issur of amira l’akum.
How do you get around bishul aku”m? I thought you had conceded that.
Why must you grasp at straws? This is Not the way to prove s/o else wrong!
You don’t do yourself any credit by adding these types of comments to your arguments.
#23 is going on the Mechaber of “V’yesh Oisrin”. The very next line – the Rema argues. So you’re trying to “prove” me wrong by a Shitta that argues on the Shitta I’m Soimeach on.
I wasn’t bringing a proof from that specific din; I was demonstrating that there is chiluk between tzrochim.
I’d go ahead if you explain me why you don’t understand.
Because how a situation came about has no bearing on how big the tzorech is; many cases of tzorech gadol are caused by a peshiah, and it has no bearing on possible heter.
The case of the refrigerator, where one neglected to remove the bulb before Shabbos, is clearly a peshiah, yet is considered a tzorech gadol.
This Chiddush of his -I actually find very amusing and I don’t know why. Perhaps I have a weird sense of humor?!
Not a contradiction; according to most poskim (R’ Moshe excepted) we don’t follow this R’ma.
I don’t see how you can be mechalek between the tzorech in 253 and what the R’ma was mattir in 276. I’m not committed to using “midi d’achilah” as the chiluk (v’tzorich iyun), but I don’t believe anyone would be mattir bishul gamur other than for a choleh.
Hi Health.
Just a note to say that tenacity, whether abundant or overabundant, is not a proof of being correct.
I enjoy reading the differences of opinions and presentation of various facts to support differing views on the same idea.
I learn and I am grateful.
Is it possible that in the exchange of ideas, whether right or wrong, or perceived right or wrong, that the tone does not have to sour? It spoils the good, thought-worthy points being made.
DY – “It might only be muktzah because of the issur of amira l’akum.”
I hold like the Shittos -Ameira L’acum B’mokom Tzorech Godol even by a D’oraysa is Mutter!
“How do you get around bishul aku”m? I thought you had conceded that.”
No, I didn’t. What I concided on was that electricity is an Issur D’oraysa. I’ll refresh your memory:
From page #4 -“DaasYochid -“Health,
The Aruch Hashulchan is only matir if it’s an employee, and one of the factors is that a Jew will likely aid in the cooking, which certainly can’t be said in this case.”
My reply:
“The Rishon who this comes from is not Mechalek. Also, the Jew helped by making the Chulent and putting it in the crockpot.
And there is a Kal V’chomer -If an employee is Mutter because you won’t get close to him because he is getting paid, for sure some stranger off the street whom you won’t probably ever see again -you won’t get close to.” (The last reason of course is only talking about cooking in the Jew’s house.)
“I wasn’t bringing a proof from that specific din; I was demonstrating that there is chiluk between tzrochim.”
Ok, so what? What does this have to do my case of the crockpot?
“Because how a situation came about has no bearing on how big the tzorech is; many cases of tzorech gadol are caused by a peshiah, and it has no bearing on possible heter.
The case of the refrigerator, where one neglected to remove the bulb before Shabbos, is clearly a peshiah, yet is considered a tzorech gadol.”
Again, if you want to ask on those Shittos from 253 -go ahead.
But my case -I didn’t Matir in a case of Peshiah. So there is no problem with my case to 253. S’A 253 is a case of Peshiah -they knew from the git go that the fire might go out and therefore they arranged with Goyim to move it -if it does. My case is a total Oiness, no Peshiah!
I am mystified as to why you are so certain of this point. The Rema 253 made no mention of any Tzorech at all.
I understand that you feel there is a contradiction between the Rema 253 and 276, and feel a need to make some distinction. However, your problem is based on a Hanacha that 253 is a Tzorech Gadol. A general rule in learning my Rebbeim taught me way back when is: when you have a problem based on a Hanacha, throw out the Hanacha!!!
A general rule in learning my Rebbeim taught me way back when is: when you have a problem based on a Hanacha, throw out the Hanacha!!!
That obviously depends on how strong the hanacha is and where it comes from.
For example, the Aruch Hashulchan (34-36) explains the R’ma 253 in context of “makom mitzvah” which is equivalent to tzorech gadol.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9101&st=&pgnum=47
I found a fascinating B’er Moshe who addresses the refrigerator shaila. Vol.6, 9-11 in ?????? ????????.
He is mattir l’tzorech gadol, and says that in that case, “hakol modim”.
Let me know what you think.
Either there’s a difference between ?? ?????? and ?? ?????? ??????, or our ?????? was already between the ??”? and ???”?, and ?”?. I prefer the former explanation.
I’m also not sure that the ?”? means “chumra” the way we use it (optional).
I agree that we don’t use the term ?? ?????? (or ?? ?????? ??????) for a clear cut din; the ?”? might just mean that it’s not up for judgement.
If you pay a torch to set your property alight for insurance purposes, and you use the embers of the bricks and wood to roast marshmallows, are the marshmallows bishul akum?
DY: “I’m also not sure that the ?”? means “chumra” the way we use it (optional)”
I’m shocked at the thought that you suspected me of using the term “chumra” to mean optional!!! Any serious student of Halacha knows that this is certainly not the way the term is used in Poskim.
However, it certainly indicates a lesser severity or certainty of Issur, and lends the stricture of the Pri Chadash less weight against the Tiferes l’Moshe and other Meikilim.
DY: “For example, the Aruch Hashulchan (34-36) explains the R’ma 253 in context of “makom mitzvah” which is equivalent to tzorech gadol”
Punkt fakert. Makom Mitzva is the lower level that is only permitted in a Shvus d’Shvus. He clearly is saying that were it a Tzorech Gadol the Rema l’Shittaso would permit it.
Any serious student of Halacha knows that this is certainly not the way the term is used in Poskim.
You used the term in response to MeemaYehudis, who asked the shaila.
He clearly is saying that were it a Tzorech Gadol the Rema l’Shittaso would permit it.
He is saying no such thing. See M”B in 325:60 who equates “d’var mitzvah gemurah” (including hot food) with tzorech gadol.
If you pay a torch to set your property alight for insurance purposes, and you use the embers of the bricks and wood to roast marshmallows, are the marshmallows bishul akum?
1) They are ne’echal k’mos shehu chai.
2) You roasted them
3) You have worse problems to worry about
LOL Daas – but you failed to mention that anyone who roasts marshmallows on the embers of an insurance fire that was set for him is a shoiteh. The first halacha of a gitte sryfe is to make sure you and your family or business partners look very upset!
hello99 -“A general rule in learning my Rebbeim taught me way back when is: when you have a problem based on a Hanacha, throw out the Hanacha!!!”
I agree. If you have to change Poshut Pshat in the Hagohos Maimonius or erase it -it’s better to throw out the Hanacha.
And the Hanacha is – Only Vaday Yoshon is Mutter!
DY: “See M”B in 325:60 who equates “d’var mitzvah gemurah” (including hot food) with tzorech gadol”
Isn’t it obvious that the unusual term “d’var mitzvah gemurah” is different than “makom mitzva”???
“You used the term in response to MeemaYehudis, who asked the shaila”
Yes, so???
hello99 -“DY: “See M”B in 325:60 who equates “d’var mitzvah gemurah” (including hot food) with tzorech gadol”
Isn’t it obvious that the unusual term “d’var mitzvah gemurah” is different than “makom mitzva”???”
I was going to answer him the same way and I also was going to say (without this obvious Chiluk) in the M’B he says “OH”, since when does “OH” -“either” equate two things? It could be Mutter in a case of Tzorech Godol and it could be Mutter even in a case of Tzorech Mitzva.
And I went back and checked S’A 253 and I didn’t find once the Loshon, even in the Nosai Keilim, of Tzorech Godol, just Tzorech Mitzva (Shabbos).
This would make sense acc. to the Rema in 276 #2 where he first says Ameira L’acum is Mutter even by a Melacha Gemura B’mokom Mitzva and then says be Machmir unless it’s a case of Tzorech Godol. You see clearly he differentiated between the two!
Isn’t it obvious that the unusual term “d’var mitzvah gemurah” is different than “makom mitzva”???</em.
Not really, he just means as opposed to other types of food for Shabbos which are not necessarily considered a mitzvah.
“You used the term in response to MeemaYehudis, who asked the shaila”
Yes, so???
In that context, I assumed you meant “chumra” the way it’s commonly used, not the way iy’s used in nosei keilim.
This would make sense acc. to the Rema in 276 #2 where he first says Ameira L’acum is Mutter even by a Melacha Gemura B’mokom Mitzva and then says be Machmir unless it’s a case of Tzorech Godol. You see clearly he differentiated between the two!
So you’re conceding that not having cholent is not a tzorech gadol, only a d’var mitzvah, and that it’s therefore assur even according to the R’ma?
but you failed to mention that anyone who roasts marshmallows on the embers of an insurance fire that was set for him is a shoiteh.
That’s one of the worse problems you have to worry about.
DY -“Not really, he just means as opposed to other types of food for Shabbos which are not necessarily considered a mitzvah.”
Oh, you mean like in 253? If that’s what Mokom Mitzva (Tzorech Shabbos) means you have no Kasha in the first place. 253 is just Mokom Mitzva while everywhere else is Mitzva Gemura. Either way you backed yourself in a corner.
“So you’re conceding that not having cholent is not a tzorech gadol, only a d’var mitzvah, and that it’s therefore assur even according to the R’ma?”
Even if you don’t think my case is a total Oiness, like I explained above, I just explained acc. to you, not having a Cholent would be Tzorech Mitzva Gemura, not like the first part of the Rema in 276 & not like 253 where it is only L’tzorech Mitzva (Shabbos)!
Ah, but if you’re a shoiteh, you’re potur for whatever onesh you’d normally deserve for the arson itself!
Was it here or somewhere else that I wrote about meeting Benzine Weiss, the arsonist who gets his sentence reduced every time for intellectual impairment by pleading innocent and then telling the judge that he’s called Benzine Weiss instead of Bentzion Wasserman because he pours weisse benzine on the floor and lights matches?
253 is just Mokom Mitzva while everywhere else is Mitzva Gemura.
There’s no difference. If you have another cholent, it’s not any sort of mitzvah, it would be like the “peiros” which is not muttar even with a double shvus. If you don’t have another cholent (or, more accurately, no other “tavshil cham”, then it is a “mitzvah gemurah”.
I know that it’s assur because we don’t generally hold like the R’ma, and I feel that the R’ma wouldn’t be mattir here anyhow. You, l’shitoscha, backed yourself into a corner by agreeing with hello99.
DaasYochid -“There’s no difference. If you have another cholent, it’s not any sort of mitzvah, it would be like the “peiros” which is not muttar even with a double shvus. If you don’t have another cholent (or, more accurately, no other “tavshil cham”, then it is a “mitzvah gemurah”.”
Again you make assumptions and ask questions based on them. Who told you there wasn’t another Dovor Cham in 253, maybe there is, but you’re eating them at different meals? And your statement -“it’s not any sort of mitzvah, it would be like the “peiros” which is not muttar even with a double shvus.” would not apply because it’s Oneg Shabbos on every meal. You keep equating “Mitzva Gemura” with “Dovor Mitzva”, but you haven’t brought a shred of proof to this.
Common sense dictates there is a difference between Mitzva Gemura and/or Tzorech Godol and L’tzorech Mitzva. This is where me and hello99 agree.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.