[Avodah] Fasting on YK

[Celejar]

[RMB: I choose not to trim, as I consider everything here to be relevant
to understanding my response.  If you disagree, so be it.  I'm cc'ing
you and RCL anyway.]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 23:15:22 -0000
"Chana Luntz" <chana at kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:

> > On Wed, January 23, 2008 8:27 am, chana at kolsassoon.org.uk wrote:
> > :                                         That means that, cooking on
> > : shabbas for the person who is already sufficiently sick is 
> > completely,
> > : al pi halacha, mutar.  Going to get the food from the neighbour
> > : therefore is a chumra, and we do not (at least according to RSZA)
> > : impose a chumra in the case where it will cause tzar.
> > 
> > Assuming, as you do, hutra. What if dechuyah?
> 
> Not necessarily me, but RSZA.  I agree it is more difficult to explain
> RSZA if you say that it is dechuya.  After all, here there is a
> neighbour with food.  To the choleh it does not matter whether the food
> comes from the neighbour or you cook it in terms of doing what is best
> for their illness.  If it is dechuya, how could you let the mere tzar of
> the neighbour compete with an issur d'orisa of bishul?  I think you can
> still get there, but it does mean a more expansive understanding of
> dechuye than one might otherwise have thought.  It means on has to say,
> if one is going to say, as RSZA says, that the tzar of the neighbour
> allows you to then cook for the choleh, that the issur is sufficiently
> pushed off the cook that (even if the cook is the same person as the
> neighbour whose food might be used) the existence of available food from
> elsewhere is not enough to re-establish the issur.
> 
>  I thought that 
> > was the whole nafqa mina of that machloqes. (I also thought 
> > that lema'aseh we're chosheshim that shabbos is only dechuyah.)
> 
> Of course if you do not use this expansive definition of dechuye, or you
> reject this understanding, then it has even less applicability to the
> husband and fasting wife.

RSZA himself begins one of the footnotes cited in my original post [0]
by explicitly stating that his ruling holds even according the the
opinion of d'huya.  It's not a question "let[ting] the mere tzar of the
neighbour compete with an issur d'orisa of bishul"; RSZA explains
simply that there's no issur being done since the m'lachah is
mutteres.  He also gives other arguments for his conclusion being true
according to everyone.

> > SheTir'u baTov!
> > -micha
> 
> Regards
> 
> Chana

[0] Sh'miras Shabbos K'hilchasah Ch. 32 n166

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat