By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Warning labels come in all shapes, forms and sizes.  Allergens, for example are listed on labels.  Imagine,  for a moment, if foods that were susceptible to halachic problems, came with halachic warnings.

In terms of the Shabbos Malacha of Borer – selecting, most people know the three permitted methods.  It has got to be all of the three yads:

• Miyad – for immediate use (l’alter)
• B’yad – by hand (or extension of it) and not a selecting tool and
• Good from b’yad (sorry). – and not bad from good also called ochel mitoch psoles and NOT psoles mitoch ochel.

But let’s further explore the definition of “immediate use” discussed in Shulchan Aruch (OC 319:3)

Many of us know that there are three opinions cited in the Rishonim.

1. There is the opinion of the Mordechai (cited in the very beginning of Klal Gadol in tractate Shabbos) that immediate means – RIGHT NOW, There is no concept of “for the Shabbos meal.”
2. There is the opinion of Rabbeinu Yerucham that immediate use even extends to the early part of the meal – even if it is not immediately consumed, but does not extend to the end of a stretched out meal. [This is the Bais Yoseph’s reading of Rabbeinu Yerucham, but the Prisha puts the Mordechai as #3 below].
3. And there is the opinion of the Rosh and Ran that “immediate use” even extends to the end of a stretched-out meal.

THE MYSTERIOUS RAMAH

The Ramah seems to add an additional leniency.  Not only does he pasken that immediate use extends to the end of Seudah (like the Rosh and Ran) but he adds that the borer can be done “samuch l’Seudah” – close to the meal and does not have to be at the beginning of the meal.  And for hundreds of years, the Acharonim have posed two question:

1] What is the Ramah’s source?

2] How long is this “Samuch l’Seudah” period?

In answer to the first question, there seem to be three different theories as to the Ramah’s source.

The Pri Magadim in his Aishel Avrohom (319:6) states that the Ramah conceived of this through his own reasoning (Svarah d’nafshei).  This author’s understanding is that since the underlying concept is that it is permitted for derech achilah – the manner of eating, the Ramah understands derech achilah to including derech food prep for the achilah – in that that is how people make the food – right before the meal starts.

The Pri Magadim further explains the possibility that the Ramah had an alternative reading of Rabbeinu Yerucham, and his source was from that alternative reading, namely, that Rabbeinu Yerucham defined l’alter as for the next meal.

THE VILNA GAON

The Vilna Gaon provides an entirely different thought.  He writes that the Gemorah in Shabbos 74a states that if the person does the selecting for that Shabbos day, it is considered as if he has selected for his storehouse.  This indicates that if it is less than that Shabbos day, it would be permitted.

ANSWERING THE SECOND QUESTION

The Eglei Tal writes that the parameters of Samuch L’Seudah are specifically one hour.

Most Poskim,  [the Aruch HaShulchan (321:9); Rav Elyashiv zt”l cited in Ayil Meshulash 8, fn #45, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l IM OC IV 74:13, and Rav Neuwirth SSK 3: 68,69],  are of the opinion that the term hour means according to the time that it would require.  In other words, if it is a small meal than one does not have even an hour and if it is a significant meal – then one has even more than an hour.

The Chazon Ish’s opinion, first cited in Nachalas Eliyahu Vol. I #45,by Rabbi Eliyahu Doshnitzer zt”l of the Lomza Yeshiva is that the maximum Samuch l’Seudah is 30 minutes and even if there are many people this time period is not to be extended for any reason, because many people makes no difference.  People are not connected to each other in regard to this halacha.

There is great debate, however, as to how to understand this Chazon Ish.

The Ayil Meshulash (by Rabbi Menachem Aryeh Schlesinger) and the Chut Sheini (by Rav Nissim Karelitz zt”l) understand the Chazon Ish’s position that the 30 minute maximum even applies to family events.

Rav Fellman zt”l writes in his Shalmei Todah (Borer p. 13) otherwise – that he understood the Chazon Ish as being of the opinion that family simchas do connect people to each other. The Shvus Yaakov (p. 218) cites Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l [who studied in Lomza and went back to the Chazon Ish’s home every Shabbos] that it is likely that the Chazon Ish was ruling only for the specific situation of the Lomza yeshiva and not for family gatherings.

The author can be reached at [email protected]