Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
which sub-topic are you starting with? Muktza is vast!!!
Also, I assume the Shulchan Aruch you are referring to is 675:3. The Magen Avraham 4 explains (see Machatzis HaShekel) that it refers to when there is no man lighting. He understands the intention of the Shulchan Aruch is that she has no obligation to light when a man is already lighting. Certainly, there is no indication that one does not fulfill Mehadrin Min HaMehadrin otherwise.
DY: The first quote was more precise. The Mikrai Kodash is Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me at the moment to glean the precise sources in the other Seforim and it is not on HebrewBooks.
giggle girl: the Rambam says that as a starting point. However, he continues that every decision is either a Mitzva if the choice is l’Shem Shamaim or and Aveira if otherwise. Therefore, he concludes that every single choice has Bechira.
DY: Your are ignoring the very significant difference between ???? and ?? ??????. The Prim Megadim changed the severity of the Pri Chadash and only quoted one of his two reasons.
I can send you nearly 150 pages of Mareh Mekomos. How should I get it to you?
MeemaYehudis: I stand by my original post.”According to the majority of Poskim, an irrelegious Jew does NOT create Bishul Akum, because the Gezeira was to prevent intermarriage and there is no prohibition against marrying the daughter of a sinner. Sources: Tiferes l’Moshe, Pischei Teshuva, Yabia Omer, Halichos Olam, Tzitz Eliezer. There are grounds to be stringent based on the Pri Chadash, but even he only considers it a Chumra.”
DY: any comment?
Jothar: are you there?
GAW: first of all, it’s 671:2. Secondly, there is no mention in Shulchan Aruch of girls. Certainly, ?? ??? ???? ???? does not require infants to light to fulfill Mehadrin MIN HaMehadrin, so there is no indication it requires girls either. I quoted this previously from the Meiri, Shiltei Giborim and Magen Avraham and Mikraei Kodesh.
So, sorry but the Shulchan Aruch does not say that girls must light to fulfill Mehadrin MIN HaMehadrin either.
Sam2: I agree that any solution that works with Issur should help for fish and meat; however, your solution to mix the sauce before adding it to the meat would be problematic. The Pri Megadim SD 99:22 writes that milk cannot be added to water with the explicit intention to add the mixture to meat. Mixing the fish to make it Batel before applying to meat would be the same problem.
The way you wish to interpret the Ran as solely following the Din, which I admit some of my Talmidim also initially made the same mistake, the goal is unrealized. The entire point of the Ran was to elucidate the distinction between Mino and Eino Mino by DASHILM, and according to you it is irrelevant.
GAW: If you can invent a Seif in Shulchan Aruch, I can erase it 😉
passfan: I don’t have Bar Ilan
sam: I understand, but still feel it is disrespectful
I agree with AZ 100% on this issue. Not may others, however. He is presenting the Halacha in an accurate manner.
this was discussed 3 months ago, in fact you asked it then too
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/crisp-on-fulton-street-in-manhattan
I think the Pri Megadim is fine and you are remembering the Ran incorrectly. He says that Bitul is universally accepted to require Hisnagdus. According to Rabbi Yehuda, it must be conflict in Metzius; therefore, Min b’Mino is never Batel. According to the Chachomim, even Hisnagdus in Din is sufficient to effect Bitul. However, the contrast must be extreme, and Davar she’Yesh Lo Matirim is too similar to Heter to create sufficient opposition for Bitul. Certainly, the Chachomim agree that Hisnagdus in Metzius is Kal v’Chomer sufficient for Bitul.
Also, my point with Rabbi Akiva Eiger was that his reason is NOT “nothing could go wrong”
Also, once Chazal forbade Bitul Issur l’Chatchila, we cannot dismiss a d’Rabannan just because we think thmotiveve is not relevant. So, the Sevara is not enough to make it Mutar.
sam2: I have to object to calling Halachos in the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch “strange”!!!
Regarding a lack of Mehadrin; the Meiri, Shiltei Giborim and Magen Avraham all write that it is only necessary for adult children to light and not minors. There is no need to indicate the total number of people in the house to fulfill Mehadrin, only those obligated. The Mikraei Kodesh quoted above suggests that the same exemption should apply to girls and women.
DY: You are entitled to your opinion. However, it seems clear to me that there is a very significant difference between ???? and ?? ??????.
Sam2: it may seem strange to you, but it the accepted Halacha in Shulchan Aruch. Additionally, there is a clear Minhag for hundreds of years that single girls do not light. The Chasam Sofer addresses one possible reason.
Jothar: While the filament is very hot and generates electrons and visible light, the gas inside the bulb cannot conduct the electricity when it is below a certain temperature. That explains why some bulbs do not work outdoors in cold weather.
If you touch a straight fluorescent bulb near the ends, it is very hot to the touch. It is less hot than an incandescent bulb because the filament is shielded to protect the glass from blackening. Additionally, the heat can dissipate down the length of the bulb, unlike a rounded incandescent.
DY: The Pri Chadash is 112:2 and he writes ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????
Jothar: if the only issue was the starter used to heat the gas to the required temperature you would be correct on both points. It is both becoming obsolete and additionally incidental to the primary generation of light, and could potentially be termed Aino Mechavein.
old man: It is difficult for me to know how to relate to someone who argues on Shulchan Aruch without giving any justification.
I hope you see this in time. I don’t know why this would be “untrue”. The following is copied from Wikipedia:
The fundamental means for conversion of electrical energy into radiant energy in a fluorescent lamp relies on inelastic scattering of electrons. An incident electron collides with an atom in the gas. If the free electron has enough kinetic energy, it transfers energy to the atom’s outer electron, causing that electron to temporarily jump up to a higher energy level. The collision is ‘inelastic’ because a loss of kinetic energy occurs.
This higher energy state is unstable, and the atom will emit an ultraviolet photon as the atom’s electron reverts to a lower, more stable, energy level. Most of the photons that are released from the mercury atoms have wavelengths in the ultraviolet (UV) region of the spectrum, predominantly at wavelengths of 253.7 and 185 nanometers (nm). These are not visible to the human eye, so they must be converted into visible light. This is done by making use of fluorescence. Ultraviolet photons are absorbed by electrons in the atoms of the lamp’s interior fluorescent coating, causing a similar energy jump, then drop, with emission of a further photon. The photon that is emitted from this second interaction has a lower energy than the one that caused it. The chemicals that make up the phosphor are chosen so that these emitted photons are at wavelengths visible to the human eye. The difference in energy between the absorbed ultra-violet photon and the emitted visible light photon goes toward heating up the phosphor coating.
When the light is turned on, the electric power heats up the cathode enough for it to emit electrons (thermionic emission). These electrons collide with and ionize noble gas atoms inside the bulb surrounding the filament to form a plasma by the process of impact ionization. As a result of avalanche ionization, the conductivity of the ionized gas rapidly rises, allowing higher currents to flow through the lamp.
The fill gas helps determine the operating electrical characteristics of the lamp, but does not give off light itself. The fill gas effectively increases the distance that electrons travel through the tube, which allows an electron a greater chance of interacting with a mercury atom. Argon atoms, excited to a metastable state by impact of an electron, can impart this energy to a neutral mercury atom and ionize it, described as the Penning effect. This has the benefit of lowering the breakdown and operating voltage of the lamp, compared to other possible fill gases such as krypton.[15]
[edit] Construction
Close-up of the cathodes of a germicidal lamp (an essentially similar design that uses no fluorescent phosphor, allowing the electrodes to be seen.)
A fluorescent lamp tube is filled with a gas containing low pressure mercury vapor and argon, xenon, neon, or krypton. The pressure inside the lamp is around 0.3% of atmospheric pressure.[16] The inner surface of the bulb is coated with a fluorescent (and often slightly phosphorescent) coating made of varying blends of metallic and rare-earth phosphor salts. The bulb’s electrodes are typically made of coiled tungsten and usually referred to as cathodes because of their prime function of emitting electrons
Sam2: I don’t disagree that this is likely the source of the Minhag; however, it would appear to be mistaken. If Mincha was concluded before Tzeis, there is no reason to omit Tachanun.
the Halacha is that Tachanun may be recited until Tzeis. Since most Chassidim follow Rabbeinu Tam’s Tzeis, this should rarely be an issue.
old man: I would like to hear if you were unaware of the Chasam Sofer and retract your assumption that meat and fish is merely a Minhag, or if you have some source or authority that disagrees with him.
I can’t think of any case where we say ???? ?????? ???? on Mamashus. It is only used in conjunction with ??? ?????? ????, which works with a pot but not sauce.
Jothar: just a reminder, we are awaiting your Rav’s explanation for fluorescents.
yitay: do you agree?
The Shela, Vilna Gaon and Chazon Ish said that one must be careful regarding uncovered water even today.
copied from culinarykosher.com
Question: Is WORCESTERSHIRE SAUCE Parev? There is a recipe for chicken which calls for it and I am confused.
OU policy is not to write “Fish” if there is 60 against it.
jother: “Fluorescent light bulbs- my rav paskens they are different than incandescent bulbs”
Would you mind asking your Rav the reason. According to my research, the cathode in a fluorescent lamp contains a filament heated between 1000 degrees Kelvin and 2500. I don’t doubt his knowledge, I would like to hear a reason to be lenient. BTW, Orchos Shabbos 16:7 also rules that they are Mavir due to the spark.
I’m glad we have narrowed our disagreement regarding using a young child. I think where we stand is that I only question your comment “But if I hold him near the light and give no indication either way, then it is daas atzmo”. I think that at 18 months a child would realize why you are holding him next to the switch. I don’t mind agreeing to disagree on this minor detail.
regarding Shul: since my opinion is that fluorescent lighting is d’Oraisa, there would be no grounds for leniency, even for the others.
The Mishna Shabbos 121a states that if ones house is burning down on Shabbos and a Goy wishes to extinguish it for you, you need not stop him. However, a Jewish child must be stopped. The Gemara explains that the Goy does it for his own interest, but the child does it for his father.
From the context, it is obvious that there is no Heter if the child will benefit as well. The source in the Mishna and Shulchan Aruch is his house burning down too, and nevertheless it is forbidden to let him extinguish the fire despite the extreme loss of money and discomfort.
In conclusion, I cannot take responsibility for the words of Rabbi Cohen and Rabbi Leff, but the Gemara, Shulchan Aruch and basic Poskim all rule that any child old enough to understand when his parents are happy with his actions or upset, is forbidden Min HaTorah to do Melacha for the parent even without an explicit instruction or thanks. I think that any parent will agree this occurs well before the second birthday.
What I was thinking follows these lines.
Sorry for writing in English, I type faster this way.
What do you think?
jothar: if you hold your child to the light and he turns it on, you have just been Over the Issur d’Oraisa of ????? ??? whether or not you thank him!
Great. Now I think you are ready to hear my real Chiddush. It’s getting late here, maybe I will have time to write it Motzei Shabbos
Additionally, ??? ???? requires ??? ????? to become ???? ?????. This means that even if a cheeseburger melted on a ??? ??? would be chemically identical to one heated directly on the fire, the first would only be ???? ?????? while the second would be ???? ?????. The first is chemically cooked, but not in the manner that the Torah dictated. Would you allow a laboratory test to change this Halacha too?
Do you find this more acceptable?
Isn’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.
yitayningwut: you there?
So, even if ???? ??? certainly heated the cold item, there would still be a necessity to determine its Halachic status.
correct, 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
if it doesn’t burst, you’re fine. I don’t recommend it because it is a risk. If only a small amount of steam is escaping, it may not be a problem