[Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

<In fact, the
Ashkenazi position (of doing chazara when soup is still warm) is based on
the position of ain bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as the ikar hadin>

And RRW replied:

> http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/bishul3.htm
> 
> 
> <The Chazon Ish (ibid.) explains that the Rama fundamentally accepts
> the lenient view as normative. However, there is concern that if an
> item has completely cooled down it will be difficult to distinguish
> between the cooled down liquid and liquid that has never been heated.
> The common practice seeks to avoid this potential confusion.
> 
>  Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (cited by Rav Mordechai Willig, Bait
> Yitzchak 21:181), on the other hand, suggests that the Rama
> fundamentally accepts the stringent opinion as normative. The Rav
> notes, though, that the reasoning of the strict view is that when a
> liquid cools down, no impact remains from of the cooking. Accordingly,
> as long as the liquid has not completely cooled down, some of the
> effect on the original cooking remains.>
> 
> IIRC when I taught this sugya I was quite convinced of RYDS's p'shat in
> Rema.

But doesn't that mean, according to RYDS, that even the strict view holds
that ain bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach at any point above completely
cool - so even according to him my statement is not exactly unture?  

I confess I do have difficulty with RYDS's pshat.  Because that means not so
much reinterpreting the Rema, but reinterpreting the Shulchan Aruch (as
meaning that to the extent he holds yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach
he also means only really once it has become completely cold).

Which of course would mean that you would need to reinterpret the rishonim
that the Shulchan Aruch relies upon as saying this as well (because as per
usual, the Shulchan Aruch did not come up with his position himself, he just
relied on certain rishonim as against other rishonim).

In addition, why does the Rema need to bring those who are makil completely
before effectively reverting to the stringent position if it has no effect
on the psak?

Of course, my bias is probably showing here.  The entire Sephardi world
understands the Mechaber (and hence the rishonim on which he relies) as
holding yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach as meaning that once the
item drops below yad soledet bo, then there is bishul in getting it up
again.  And they have poskened like this halacha l'ma'aseh for generations.
And obviously RYDS's pshat is against this (while the Chazon Ish is in
accordance with the Sephardi position of understanding the Shulchan Aruch,
with the Rema disagreeing).  I suppose I have significant problems with an
interpretation that effectively says that half the rest of the world is
wrong in their understanding of the person upon whom they rely halacha
l'ma'ase when it isn't necessary to hold that way - but arguably that is
Brisk for you.

 
> KT
> RRW
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Regards

Chana