hello99

The Aruch HaShulchan tries to reconcile the Shach who holds that Milsa d’Avida l’Ta’ama is d’Rabannan and the Kreisi u’Pleisi who holds it is d”Oraisa. He differentiates between the slight flavor generally added by spices, which is Ta’am Kalush when less than 1/60 and d’Rabannan and a dominat flavor that would be d’Oraisa.

He certainly holds that Ta’am Kalush could apply to Avida l’Ta’ama.

Sam: you can take of it up with the whole list Poskim who are lenient for 60. I did not support one side or the other, just attempted to explain the lenient opinion

Sam: “Presumably there is also a physical danger involved in Tzara’as.”

That’s a presumption, I’m awaiting a source or proof. Admittedly my proof to the contrary may not be iron-clad,but I have yet to see any indication supporting your position. the encyclopedic work Shmiras HaGuf v’HaNefesh discusses atlengtht various opinions regarding the severity and source of the prohibition of incurring danger. He makes no distinction between physical and spiritual danger. Of course his omission is not a conclusive proof either.

I think that at Shishim it is considered to not be physically present, as the Rambam refers to it as ????? ????? ??????. This opinion would seem to be mutually exclusive to applying Sakanta Chamura mi’Issura to 60x.

Yaacov: Shehakol is not a solution when you can learn, or ask, and find out the answer.

yitayningwut: Rav Krausse from England proposed that chocolate should be HaEtz and asked many Gedolim. Numerous Teshuvos were written to justify the common custom to recite Shehakol. Some of the answers, such as cocoa being a minority ingredient of most chocolate, are irrelevant to peanut butter. Many of the replies appear forced.

I personally attempt to be machmir on myself to always make Shakol and HaEtz on other items before eating chocolate, but the consensus of all the Gedolim was that the primary Halacha is Shehakol, even though I’m not satisfied with any of the reasons.

The real reason seems to be, that the Shaarei Teshuva records the Beracha in chocolate as Shehakol. However, he was referring to a drink, not a bar or other solid. Drinks are intrinsically different, as Tosafos and the Rosh explain in the context of why we do not say Mezonos on beer. This is the answer also to orange juice. A liquid does not retain the original beracha, even when most are squeezed.

pba: at the end he claims that Tosafos and the Rosh would agree with Rashi, from the context this includes belila aveh

PBA: Aruch HaShulchan OC 168:30, Minchas Yitzchok 1:71:6

The exception would be a location where the MAJORITY of the people USUALLY eat pizza ONLY as a snack and NOT as a meal. The Poskim who differentiate between one and two slices are assuming such a practice, but I have not seen this in the USA or EY.

Ha’adama is correct. Even though it is pureed to the point that its source is unrecognizeable, since most peanuts are ground into peanut butter it retains its original beracha.

If not for this logic, chanky would also be Shehakol. it is not less finely ground, rather they add pieces after the processing. those pieces are a Tafel and would not affect the beracha

“PS — I’m on facebook now! But I don’t advertise it.”

you just did!!!

squeak: yes, thanks

Zahavasdad: where do you get this information from? Did you ever try hooking a milking machine to other species of animals?

sam: so the Gemara says it is tzora’as, but you assume it is physical sakana?

Anyways, I’m waiting for a source to exclude spiritual sakana

Sam: I’m afraid that contradicts the implication of his Teshuva

Also, Sam; I’m a little skeptical about your “sources”

Sam2

Member

The source for the Rosh will have to wait about a week until i get back to my notebook.

Posted 6 days ago

did you find the notebook?

Posted 7 months ago!!!!!

You also never found the Yabia Omer that is more lenient than the Tzitz Eliezer on abortions

Sam: Rav Elyashiv has a Teshuva printed in Kovetz Teshuvos where he forbids shaving with an electric shaver. Unfortunately, one of the sources he quotes is the Chofetz Chaim in Likutei Halachos, which was written before the invention of the electric shaver.

When the majority of the crop grows after Pesach, he brings a second Heter to use imports as the second Safek. He unequivocally specifies that this second Heter also requires a majority, and in lieu of that it will not apply. Again this majority does not exist today in the USA.

So, the Rema bring two potential Heteirim for Chodosh, and stipulates that both of them require at least one Safek to be 50-50. When that does not exist, he would clearly concede that there is NO Heter. That is precisely the case in the USA today.

Health: Frankly, no I cannot accept what you are saying. Rule #33 stipulates that a Safek only counts if there is at least a 50% probability of Heter. The only debate among the Poskim in this regard relates to the question if both Sfeikos require this or it is sufficient to have one at least 50% likely to be Muttar and the second can be less. The rule itself is accepted unanimously.

Logic also dictates that this must be so. Is we would have two Sfeikos each with an 80% probability of Issur, we would be left with an overwhelming likelihood of Issur, how could we imagine this would be Muttar.

No Rishon or Acharon ever proposed that Chodosh should be an exception, and there would be no logical reason to do so. In fact, as I pointed out, the Rema and Shach in 293 clearly apply this principle to Chodosh as well.

Health: let me try to resolve some of your confusion.

Again we do not have that here. Last year is a minority, and certainly imports are a small minority. Therefore, there is no Sfek Sfeika today for Chadash.

thanks, got it

sam: did he specify the “certain very tough situation”? He may have become convinced that there was a slight possibility of danger to the mother, and only based on that he would send someone to the Tzitz. Even then he would not permit himself

Clearly, the first many times he was “bugged” he was not even willing to send to the Tzitz.

squeak: I can’t say I get it

Sam: I think that if you would see the Rashba in Beitza daf 30 (which is the original source, it is brought in Shulchan Aruch OC 608:2 in the Rema)or the Mishna Berura 608:6 you would understand.