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

[Chana Luntz]

RRW writes:

> But that's not what I said
> 
> I said there was no issue of hazara so long as it was still warm so
> bringing this up to me was in a sense off point.
> 
> I don't get what bishul has to do with it since the jachter articlr
> points to Rema as machmir on lach so since he's meikil on p'saq it's
> NOT about bishul but hazzara.  I don't see how it can make any sense
> any other way!?

And then:

> 
> <as the words clearly state, not about nire kimvashel but about
> bishul mamash.>
> 
> I just reviewed 253 and 318 again
> 
> Where are these "words that clearly state?!"
> 
> Rema 318 mentions a yeish meikiln which allows hazara when cooled down
> which he then rejects based on 253.
> 
> I don't see any mention in his own da'as about bishul mamash.
 

Go back and look at the Jachter article you cited me
(http://www.koltorah.org/ravj/bishul3.htm) as I don't think I can say it any
clearer than that articles says it.  Note that it is headed "Ein Bishul
Achar Bishul"  And the first topic is headed "Liquids" and continues: The
Rishonim debate if the Ein Bishul Achar Bishul rule applies only to solids
or even to liquids."

It then goes on to say:

"Rav Yosef Karo (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 318:4 and 15) rules in
accordance with the strict opinion. The Rama (O.C. 318:15), however, cites
the lenient view. The Rama records the commonly accepted Ashkenazic practice
to adopt a compromise view. The practice is to follow the lenient opinion if
the liquid "has not completely cooled down." Acharonim debate what the Rama
refers to when he states "not completely cooled down." ...

Acharonim also debate the reasoning of this compromise. At first glance, the
compromise appears difficult since reheating a liquid that is below the
temperature of Yad Soledet Bo constitutes an act of Bishul according to the
strict opinion. On the other hand, the lenient opinion permits reheating a
liquid even if it has completely cooled down. The Halacha appears to attach
no significance to the fact that the liquid has completely cooled down.

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."

As you can see, R' Jachter clearly understands the discussion to be in terms
of bishul ("reheating a liquid that is below the temperature of Yad Soledet
Bo constitutes an act of Bishul according to the strict opinion").  If, as
this article states, RYDS believes that "the Rema fundamentally accepts the
strict opinion as normative" then that means that he believes reheating a
liquid constitutes an act of bishul (so long as it is from cold).  Not nirei
k'mevashul, bishul.

Of course these words are not clearly in the Rema.  If they were clearly in
the Rema, there is no way that the Chazon Ish and RYDS could have a
machlokus about what the Rema meant.  If the Rema had helpfully said either,
well there is no bishul achar bishul on a dvar lach and hence this is why
the custom arose to do chazara on a luke warm liquid, because there is no
actual risk of bishul here, then we would know the Chazon Ish was right.  If
on the other hand he had said, there is indeed bishul achar bishul on a dvar
lach, but only once it has fully cooled down and that is why the custom has
arisen to do chazara on a not fully cooled down liquid, then we would know
that RYDS was right.  He didn't say either, hence the machlokus.  But the
machlokus is about whether or not the Rema holds there is really a risk of
bishul here and, as the Jachter Article clearly states, the machlokus is all
sourced in Siman 318:15.

Regards

Chana