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

[Chana Luntz]

RRW writes:

> If YSB or kreiso shell  tinoq is a mere proxy for the threshold of
> bishul
> 
> Why not test "bishul" DIRECTLY!

Because you are understanding "bishul" to be the equivalent of a physical
concept of cooking, which is then measurable in terms of changes of
chemistry.  But bishul is a halachic definition, which may or may not
correspond to what any chemist might identify as cooking.

In some ways you can see this most clearly from this interpretation of RYDS
that you find so appealing.  If you had a soup that had been fully cooked,
and then in case A it was cooled fully down and in case B it was made only
luke warm  (or whatever is the lowest temperature that RYDS would allow
chazara).  If you were then to return these two liquids to identical fires,
the chemical changes or cooking would be, I would warrant, absolutely
identical.  And yet RYDS would say that case A involved halachic bishul and
case B did not. 

Of course you can argue that one of the reasons one might not find the
interpretation of RYDS so appealing (as compared eg with that of the Chazon
Ish) is because the disconnect between RYDS's definition of bishul and
cooking is so stark.  But every halachic interpretation of bishul advanced
has these issues at the margins, if perhaps not so centrally.

> Lemashal
> 
> Coal miners used canaries to test the air quality in the mine
> 
> Would you design a scientific measurement to emulate the canary or
> would you desing it to measure the air quality directly?

But that assumes that what is being tested is definitely air quality in the
mine, and not the point at which canaries die (it is in the case of a mine,
but might not be if you were doing academic studies on canaries).  Look,
let's take another classic example ,that of the concept of "melacha".
Melacha is usually translated into English as "work" - and hence you get
various reformists over the years taking jabs at the halachic concept.
After all, it is a lot more "work" for me to walk many miles to shul and
back than to drive, despite my avoiding any melacha.  And of course the
correct answer is that while the easiest way to translate melacha in English
is with the term "work" as it does best give the flavour of it, melacha is
not precisely work, and hence using a test for work will not give you the
correct answer as to what is mutar and assur on shabbas.  That is defined as
per the Torah and halacha Moshe m'Sinai.

Similarly, I do not believe that bishul precisely equals either the English
or scientific concept cooking.  And that is why we cannot use a scientific
test regarding cooking.

> Nimshal
> So: Why measure an indirect proxy when we now have the technology to
> test the threshold of cooking the food directly!
> 
> The main reason we use batteil beshishim instead of nosein ta'am is
> that the Rema says the minhag is to no longer rely upon the testimony
> of te'imas eino-yehudi.
> 
> Otherwise he would have AFAIK concured with the Rambam, Mechabeir et
> al. To continue testing directly instead of indirectly.

Yes, but here it is agreed l'halacha that the test is fundamentally nosein
ta'am.  If the gemora said that the test was what created certain scientific
patterns in food, then I agree we would want to test those directly.  But it
doesn't.  You are making the assumption that bishul equals cooking, just as
others make the assumption that melacha means work, and I believe both,
although a kind of partial truth, lead to erroneous conclusions.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that where the gemora and halacha
says that a direct test is correct, there is logic in testing directly.
That is precisely why I asked regarding kreiso shel tinuk.  Because the
gemora says that that is the  test.  Now we all understand why nobody is
actually going to do that direct test.  But now that we have scientific
information regarding what the outcome would be if we did do a direct test,
why would we not use it?  And it is stronger than the case of noten ta'am.
Because in the case of noten taim it would have been possible for the test
to remain as it was, and so a minhag did not have to arise, and so once it
did it could be considered a bone fide minhag.  But here, it was
historically impossible to test, so how could one say that one had a minhag
in circumstances where tests were a) scientifically impossible absent the
invention of thermometers and b) would involve the issur d'orisa of wounding
an innocent baby.  That seems like ones to me.

> Gutn Hanukkah
> RRW

Regards

Chana