[Avodah] Kashrus and Shabbas

[Chana Luntz]

RRW wrote:

> The following is all wrong!

I'm sorry, you will have to be a little more explicit as to what is "all
wrong" as I don't really understand.

> RYDS says  that as per the Rema the gzeiro against hazara doesn't begin
> until it cools down period!

Not just RYDS, it is explicit from the Rema himself, according to how
everybody understand the Rema, that until it cools down it can be returned
(I think that is what you mean by the gezera of hazara).  

What I understood from you and from the source you cited was the reason
given by RYDS.  The straightforward read IMHO, is the read that the article
you quoted gave in the name of the Chazon Ish, which is that fundamentally
the Rema holds ain bishul achar bishul for a dvar lach, just that there is
concern if something has completely cooled down (the Chazon Ish says because
it might be confused with a liquid which had never been cooked).  So to
avoid that concern regarding confusion, even though there is no bishul going
on, we do not allow the returning of a lach that has completely cooled down.

According to you and the source cited, RYDS holds that the Rema in fact
holds yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach.  Just that that the "yesh
bishul" part does not and cannot kick in until the lach has completely
cooled after the first cooking.  So what about the paragraph I wrote (which
you quoted) is completely wrong:

Namely
I wrote:
> <Now what you appear to be suggesting as the shita of RYDS is that,
> while the first time, in order to transform it from status X to status Y,
it
> needs to go above yad soledet bo (ie the transformation from X to Y occurs
at
> yad soledes bo), it then does not revert to status X until it is fully
> cold. That, means that RYDS is distinguishing between - let's say a liquid
of
> 35 degrees that has never been cooked to yad soledet bo, and a liquid of
> 35 degrees that has been cooked to yad soledet bo and cooled down but only
> so far as 35 degrees - with the first it is still in status X and bishul
> is involved if it is then boosted to yad soledes bo, with the second it is
> in status Y and no bishul is involved regardless of how high it goes.  So
> far, that is the same position as those who traditionally hold ain bishul
> achar bishul vis a vis a liquid of 35 degrees.  It is only at the
completely
> cold point that RYDS says suddenly there is yesh bishul achar bishul,
> because suddenly it is back in status X and hence boosting it to yad
soledes bo
> is bishul. Presumably however merely boosting it to 35 degrees is not in
> and of itself bishul (leaving aside chatzi shiur considerations), that is
just
> taking the chill off, but then taking that same liquid and boosting it
> to yad soledes bo would be bishul because it has reverted to status X.>

And RRW responded:

> This is about hazarah as long as some heat remains Rema permits it.

But there is no dispute about that.  The question is why does the Rema
permit it, not whether he does or not.  

Second email from RRW:

> I taught the Jachter article in class when teaching Maseches Shabbos
> 
> I don't always see RYDS' read as convincing
> 
> Here I was so convinced that I frankly think the other reads are dochak
> 
> RYDS makes the entire matter simple and consistent.  I find the MGA
> quite forced in comparison.  I find it hard to believe that this is a
> radical read at all EG My students at that time bought it w/o any
> pikpuk.
> 
> So much so that I had put the other read out of my mind.

And I am coming from the opposite pole.  I find the Chazon Ish's and the
Magen Avraham's read very convincing, and while, like my experience with a
number of RYDS's reads, this does hold together, when you dig deeper it
seems problematic, far more problematic than the Chazon Ish read.

> And I have had 2nd hand experience where a cholent pot's fire went out
> and the local [yekke] poseiq allow hazarah as long as any heat remained
> whatsoever even if not YSB - halacha lemaaseh.

I don't understand how this helps though, because this would most likely be
true according to the Chazon Ish read as well, ie he does not need to choose
in order to reach this psak.  In fact, I would have thought it even easier
to reach this psak based on the Chazon Ish, because after all, according to
the Chazon Ish, there is no risk of bishul at all, because ain bishul achar
bishul on a dvar lach according to the Rema, the only potential risk is
confusion.  Whereas, as you have explained RYDS, if it did reach whatever
temperature is deemed to be completely cold, we are suddenly in bishul
territory and we may have an issur d'orisa on our hands.

> But lechatchila he would prefer if it was still YSB.

If you hold that YSB is (or is at least at one end) 80 degrees celcius, and
that there is bishul achar bishul on a d'var lach once it drops below yad
soledes bo, ie there is an issur d'orisa at stake, then as the Kaf Hachaim
holds, it is almost impossible to ever put a dvar lach back, because the
likelihood is that it may have fallen below yad soledes once it is taken off
and the stakes are too high.  You don't get to lechatchila he would prefer
if you are following the Mechaber.  The way the Chazon Ish would understand
this was that he was, being Ashkenazi, legitimately following the Rema, who
was relying fundamentally on the rishonim who hold ain bishul achar bishul
on a dvar lach, but understandably he would be happier if he could follow
all the rishonim, even those who held yesh bishul achar bishul on a dvar
lach (the ones the Mechaber follows).

It is not so much that there is going to be a huge difference in halacha
l'ma'aase in this difference of reading, as I see it. The major difference
halacha l'ma'ase, it seems to me would mostly centre on whether a korban
chatas would need to be brought if one did cook a liquid that had been let
go completely cold (Chazon Ish, no, RYDS yes).  And in theoretical terms, it
must somehow involve a different reading of at least some rishonim (but
since I don't understand on which rishonim RYDS applies his analysis, I am
not sure which ones) and, depending on which rishonim are read differently,
it might involve a different reading of the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch
(in my previous post I thought that was a certainty, but on reflection, it
seems to me that it might not be a certainty, it might be that RYDS hold
that the Mechaber and the Rema read the rishonim differently, not that the
rishonim themselves are definitely to be read differently).

Regards

Chana