<br>I am just reading the ROY teshuva... Yabia Omer 10:4<br>he seems to construs SA 95:4 as a lechatchila There is ZERO doubt in my mind that this is strictly b'diavad What the SA is saying in context of the previous s'if are both "hudcha" not "madichin" The SA is saying in the 2 cases no damage has been done and the dishes are muttar NOT the process. This is an obvious read even disregarding the Shach citation of hag'ala to prove this from Orach Hayyim<br>
<br>What SA is saying is that just as the case in 3 no harm is done, So it is also true if eifer preceeds the dishes into the water. Zehu pashut While Taz shach and GRA shrei against this m"chabeir as unfounded, I think the SA has a point b"diavad.<br>
<br>I find it a great tzrich Iyyun to construe this as a l'chatchilah. Just because m'chaeir sticks a muttar at the end does NOT mean the process is Muttar, just the keilim! <br><br>linguistically and philogolically the m'chabeir WOULD/SHOULD/COULD have said<br>
Madicihin beyorah she'var nasnu eifer b'socho<br>OR<br>Muttar l'hadi'ach...<br><br>Those are the proper forumlations for a l"chatchila. Rather the M'chabeir is saying post facto MUTTAR meaning no damage has been done<br>
<br>Illustration:<br>One would say a kli sheini that contained milk and meat together is MUTTAR<br>Would anyone allow cooking it l'chatchila in a kli sheini? I think not! The citation from hag'alah supports this<br>
<br>I will BEH question the mechanics of how a dishwasher works later. Maybe in Israel they work differently than in the USA. ' <br><br>I will BEH this Teshuva further.<br><br>A case for zeh achar zeh could be made. RMF has already done so under certain conditions<br>
<br><br>Shalom uVRacha<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a><br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/</a><br>
<br>