[Avodah] Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway?

[Chana Luntz]

> I wrote:
> > While you no doubt could have an argument about what the
> > state is that Chazal were referring to regarding a baby's
> > tummy, surely what we classify as a burn must fit within
> > that, and so anything that is deemed to cause a first
> > degree burn surely that would fit within the definition?

And RAM replied:
> Surely? Surely not. Or maybe. The above would make just as much sense
> if you had written "second degree" or "third degree". I have no idea
> which kind of burn Chazal were referring to, and the length of this thread
would suggest that no one else does either.

What I was trying to say was that I would have thought *any* type of burn
should fall within the gemora test (ie even the most limited kind that could
be classified as a burn).  The test in the gemora (well the Bavli anyway
Shabbas 40b) is kol shecreiso shel tinok nichveis".  That is, the point at
which the tummy of a baby (or small child) "nichveis".  Now Rashi explains
that the reason why Rachva gives this test is because the hand test is less
precise, there are some whose hands recoil at lesser temperatures and some
whose hands recoil at greater temperatures (something that seems pretty
obvious, and has been raised on this list - certainly in my anecdotal
experience skin toughens with exposure, not just with heat but hard things
such as stones if you go barefoot a lot etc). 

So given that, at least according to Rashi, the point of Rachva giving his
test was to provide a more definitive test, it seems somewhat improbable to
me that Rachva was talking about distinguishing between different kinds of
burns and the level at which the skin has been damaged (which is what I, as
a layperson, understand by the differences between types of burns).  If
something is a burn, as I understand it, the skin has been damaged and will
be marked due to the heat.  Is it possible that Rachva could be saying that
a baby with a burn on its tummy was not nichveis?

But I do want to point out that the Ben Ish Chai's test is far far higher
than a simple tummy burn.  I have a friend and she and her family were at
the airport about to go on a holiday.  But the husband bought himself a cup
of tea, and somehow her toddler managed to pull it over herself (the major
damage was, as it happened on her torso, even though she was wearing
clothes).  And so instead of going on holiday they spent the next week in
the burns unit of the local hospital with numerous outpatient visits
thereafter.  And my friend commented that pretty much all the children in
there were there due to coffee and tea accidents.  Were these coffee and
teas all at the temperature that a person would withdraw from drinking from
them because of the heat (the Ben Ish Chai's test)?  Almost certainly not.
And yet we are talking about the level of damage to a baby's tummy that will
land said baby in hospital for a week or more.  Is it possible that Rachva
could have been talking about that level of damage to a baby's torso?

> Akiva Miller

I also wrote:
> > The one in common use is to point out that the knife used for shchita
> > is deemed cold (ie does not need to be treated as though it was cooked
> > by the blood of the animal it schechted), even though it is in contact
with
> >the body temperature of an animal (43 degrees or so, although others have

And RMB replied:

> But for how long? Does the actually knife heat up? (I would think that
> if it does, pressure and friction might have more to do with it.)

The key thing is that you need to look at the gemora in Chullin 8b. The
discussion there is regarding the knife of an akum and whether if such a
knife was used for shchita what remedies you need to take in order to use at
least the majority of the meat (just wash it or remove a layer of the meat).
And the gemora there initially postulates that the machlokus between Rav and
Raba bar bar Chana is that one holds "beis haschita tzonen" and the other
holds "beis haschita roseach" - ie that the place at which the slaughter is
done on the animal is considered halachically "cold" or "boiling" (the
difference being whether the meat at the place of slaughtering is capable of
being bolea the issur contained in the knife).  And then it goes on to give
alternatives where both hold that the beis hashchita is tzonen and both hold
that beis haschita is roseach.  Ie it is the gemora that suggests that a key
factor is whether one deems the beis hashchita sufficiently hot.  And my
understanding is (and the Yalkut Yosef states explicitly in bringing the
argument) is that we hold that beis hashchita is tzonen, and that that fact
makes a difference as to whether the meat is bolea from the knife or not.

That is not to say that pressure and friction do not come into it.  In the
explanation as to how to understand this maklokus between Rav and Raba bar
bar Chana in the light of them both holding that the beis hashchita is
tzonen, it explains that the one who holds that one must cut away a portion
of the meat that is because of the pressure of the knife will cause some
absorption despite the beis haschita being tzonen.

What is not discussed is a time factor.  My knowledge of shchita is
extremely rudimentary, but I believe that it is possible to perform a kosher
shchita which involves moving the knife back and forth a number of times, ie
that the time period can be extended and still result in a kosher shchita.
Clearly while the discussion has to be around a kosher shchita (otherwise
what part of the meat can be preserved is irrelevant),  if I am right then
time would not seem to be relevant. At least here.

Nor, it seems to me, would time seem to be a key factor in Rachva's
definition regarding a baby's tummy, - otherwise surely we would have needed
a further "and for how long" question.

However time may be a factor in the test in the Yerushalmi.

I have been pointed in the direction of an extremely interesting discussion
of the various girsos found in the rishonim for the Yerushalmi test of Yad
Soledes bo in the first volume of Shut Bnei Banim Ma'amar 2 (ois aleph and
beis).  R' Henkin analyses the different girsos and concludes that some
versions appears to use the term soledes in the opposite sense to the Bavli,
but the ultimate halacha is the same, and other versions appear to use the
term soledes in the same way as the Bavli, but the halacha ends up being
different.  But part of the discussion involves girsos which do seem to
suggest a time factor - ie that there is a level at which the hand can
endure the heat always, and a level where the threshold is immediately met,
and an intermediate level where their appears to be a time shiur.  

But while very interesting, I am not sure it gets me any closer to
understanding the Ben Ish Chai.

Regards

Chana