[Avodah] Condensate and Kashrus Rema YD 92:8

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:14:04AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
:> One of my co workers wondered how can you use the hot water machine at work?
:> What about the steam from treif soups and hot chocolate
:> (the company-provided hot chocolate has marshmallows)?
...
: I presume R Micha means that the LOR permitted using the hot water even
: though it may be used or is certainly used for non-K foods. This is a
: question of whether the stream of hot water is deemed to be a connection
: that will transfer TaAm...

Yes, but I was dealing with the aspect more related to our current
topic. The hevel from my co workers' hot chocolate. How closed does
the recepticle for the mug have to be before we consider the spigot to
be in a kind of cover, and thus "treifed up" by that hevel?

: My query however deals with the apparent assumption of the Rema that
: condensate from hot milk is not milky but pure water and poses no reason to
: avoid hanging meat above a cooking pot of milk.

I'm not sure it does, because unless the cover is a lid, we don't worry
about hevel.

However, you might have proven that the Rama knew about the distilling
process, and was of the opinion that the water boils out of the milk at
a lower temp than any of its other components would boil.

:    - I dont think it wise to determine Halacha by placing bets, I mean to
:    say that such an attitude merely reflects the careless manner in which we
:    approach Halacha and make assumptions that may well not be valid. I
:    forewarned this by remarking that we are not permitted to place meat in warm
:    butter even if we are assured that the meat will be rinsed or scrubbed.
:    Furthermore there is no need to place bets, I mentioned that some Acharonim
:    are of this opinion, however the Rema does not support such interpretation
:    or addition.

While it's not wise to determine halakhah by placing bets, here we do not
determine halakhah, we just discuss it. I raised a possibility, perhaps
with an overly flippant tone, that the Rama was a particular concern. If
someone had documentation, it would be nice; and if I don't raise the
possibility, I'm less likely to get the more informed response. There
is no reason to believe the Rama necessarily disagreed with those later
acharonim, since I gave a plausible explanation of his words that are in
line with them.

Yes, if we could show that the Rama was thinking of meat drying after
cooking, my guess would be wrong. But again, if I don't write down my
guesses, how will I get help confirming or undermining them?

:    - It is not a Q of Lechatchila wiping it down, it is a Q of who would
:    ever, in the mindset we have today of Halacha, be Mattir what the Rema is
:    Mattir?

Bedi'eved? I think you already said there are acharonim who would.

:    - In a similar vein, R Micha's appeal, "Why not wash it down?" goes
:    pretty close to the core of what I am trying to illuminate - we tend to
:     extend the Halacha by appealing to what appears to us to be sensible, when
:    in fact the Halacha makes no such demand and has no such expectation.

The question relates to whether everyone holds it's okay lechat-khilah,
or with an ignorible effort, you can avoid relying on one side of a
machloqes. I mentioned the same thing about hechsheirim in last month's
thread. My problem was that bitul a"y nakhri *is* mutar lechat-khilah
lekhol havei'os. And therefore wondered about how much effort do you
need to go through to avoid relying on one tzad of a machloqes seemed
misplaced -- there is no machloqes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
micha at aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507