[Avodah] Kashrut and Shabbos (was: Kashrus and Shabbas)

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:
> > But RYDS is positing an intrinsic halachic distinction (something
> that
> > halachically happens).  Does he see this double threshold in the
> rishonim,
> > or does he understand this to be a chiddush of the Rema?  Who are the
> people
> > following when they are noheg like this?

And RAF replied.

> It has been a while since I learned this, but I vaguely remember that
> this is based on a Terumat haDeshen. Possibly quoted in the Darkei
> Moshe heArukh.

Thanks for this, I *think* that this may be talking about Teshuva 66 in the Trumat Hadeshen, where he discusses the case where people didn't have any specific oven to warm things in, and they were putting their humim in the oven that is also used to warm the house, and on shabbas a non Jew would come and take the humim out and put it on the oven and then light the oven in order to warm the house (ie the Trumat Hadeshen that is the basis of the Rema discussing this issue in 253).  And I am further guessing that the key words for RYDS in that teshuva are the reference *im lo nitkarer kol kach dugmat machel ben drosai*.  The case the Trumat Hadeshen brings in which he quotes this (that people were accustomed for weddings to keep hummim warm and then the next day non Jewish servants would come and warm them, so long as they were not fully cold) is then tracable back to the Smag and the Hagahot Maimainiot and the Machzor Vitri (and it would seem from the Trumat HaDeshen, the Morderchai, but there the Mordechai is not on Bar Ilan) - and they all use pretty much the same language except that they add in the word *tam* as in *im lo nitkarer kol kach tam dugmat machel ben drosai*.

So I assume the argument is based on understanding that something that is not fully cold is considered the equivalent of machel ben drosai vis a vis bishul - ie since kol tzorko equalling yad soledet bo then if one can drop back from kol tzorko to machal ben drosai in a liquid, then one can further drop back to uncooked once fully cold.

Now I also *think* that the Nishmas Adam (chelek 2-3 hilchot Shabbat klal 20) is specifically disagreeing with this interpretation of the Trumat Hadeshen, but I guess RYDS is entitled disagree with the Nishmas Adam.

I confess I too tend to think that when the Trumat Hadeshen and earlier uses the term dugmat machel ben drosai the issue they are dealing with is lest one stir the coals, and not whether or not there is any chance of real bishul - but at least I can see that if you do not understand this phrase that way, you would be understanding there to be a chain of tradition that goes back into the Ashkenazi rishonim, and not postulating some chiddush of the Rema.  So thanks for that.

> Arie Folger

Regards

Chana