A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.
13 added 93 characters in body
source | link

I found the Machloket (that I presented as Machloket Girsaot) it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8. We see that poskim searched the source of the chiddush of Rambam, and didn't know his Girsa.

I found the Machloket (that I presented as Machloket Girsaot) it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8.

I found the Machloket (that I presented as Machloket Girsaot) it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8. We see that poskim searched the source of the chiddush of Rambam, and didn't know his Girsa.

12 added 79 characters in body
source | link
  1. The first statement, ruling that if the milk drop is able to give taste in the meat piece, it prohibits (or the piece only, or the whole pot's content),
  2. ThereOne is allowed to shake the pot, even if one knows that this action lead to the annulment of an isur which is alreadynow happening.

It's soIn consequence,it is consistent that the Mishna Mishna says that the result of the shaking depends if the whole pot is great enough to annul the milk drop. All is allowed or all is prohibited.

If the meat piece on which fell the milk drop is not (volumetrically) sixty time bigger than the milk drop, the piece is immediately prohibited. And from this momentIn consequence, if the rest of the content of the pot is not sixty time bigger than this piece, the whole pot is prohibited. The meat piece prohibits the entire pot because one shaked the pot after it absorbed the milk (Tosfot Yom Tov explains this from the Gemara) .

I found the Machloket (that I presented as Machloket Girsaot) it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8.

HeShach objects (Tur and Rema hold this objection) against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is due to the possibility to verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if one piece have milk taste it's "nevela". When one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So shaking is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

But we don't know what happened. The first problem is treated as obvious by the Mahari Ben Chaviv, may be, no problem because there is no isur at all at this stage. The second is discussed. I will expose two terutsim. The teruts of the Magid Mishne is that when we cannot identify the piece, there is no din "piece became nevela". The teruts of Mahari Ben Chaviv is that because he cannot identify the piece, the pieces are seen as mixed and one can shake them.

  1. The first statement, ruling that if the milk drop is able to give taste in the meat piece, it prohibits (or the piece only, or the whole pot's content),
  2. There is allowed to shake the pot, even if one knows that this action lead to the annulment of an isur which is already happening.

It's so consistent that the Mishna says that the result of the shaking depends if the whole pot is great enough to annul the milk drop. All is allowed or all is prohibited.

If the meat piece on which fell the milk drop is not (volumetrically) sixty time bigger than the milk drop, the piece is immediately prohibited. And from this moment, if the rest of the content of the pot is not sixty time bigger than this piece, the whole pot is prohibited. The meat piece prohibits the entire pot because one shaked the pot after it absorbed the milk (Tosfot Yom Tov explains this from the Gemara) .

I found it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8.

He objects (Tur and Rema hold this objection) against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is due to the possibility to verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if one piece have milk taste it's "nevela". When one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So shaking is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

But we don't know what happened. The first problem is treated as obvious by the Mahari Ben Chaviv, may be, no problem because there is no isur at all at this stage. The second is discussed. The teruts of the Magid Mishne is that when we cannot identify the piece, there is no din "piece became nevela". The teruts of Mahari Ben Chaviv is that because he cannot identify the piece, the pieces are seen as mixed and one can shake them.

  1. The first statement, ruling that if the milk drop is able to give taste in the meat piece, it prohibits (or the piece only, or the whole pot's content),
  2. One is allowed to shake the pot, even if one knows that this action lead to the annulment of an isur which is now happening.

In consequence,it is consistent that Mishna says that the result of shaking depends if the whole pot is great enough to annul the milk drop. All is allowed or all is prohibited.

If the meat piece on which fell the milk drop is not (volumetrically) sixty time bigger than the milk drop, the piece is immediately prohibited. In consequence, if the rest of the content of the pot is not sixty time bigger than this piece, the whole pot is prohibited. The meat piece prohibits the entire pot because one shaked the pot after it absorbed the milk (Tosfot Yom Tov explains this from the Gemara) .

I found the Machloket (that I presented as Machloket Girsaot) it in the Sifte Cohen sk 8.

Shach objects (Tur and Rema hold this objection) against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is due to the possibility to verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if one piece have milk taste it's "nevela". When one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So shaking is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

But we don't know what happened. The first problem is treated as obvious by the Mahari Ben Chaviv, may be, no problem because there is no isur at all at this stage. The second is discussed. I will expose two terutsim. The teruts of the Magid Mishne is that when we cannot identify the piece, there is no din "piece became nevela". The teruts of Mahari Ben Chaviv is that because he cannot identify the piece, the pieces are seen as mixed and one can shake them.

11 added 61 characters in body
source | link

He objects (Tur and Rema hold this objection) against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is right. Indeed, one candue to the possibility to verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if itone piece have milk taste, when it's "nevela". When one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So thisshaking is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

He objects against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is right. Indeed, one can verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if it have milk taste, when one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So this is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

He objects (Tur and Rema hold this objection) against this practice (to shake lechatechilla) that it may be a problem of annulling isur Lechatechilla (1). And answers that the whole set of pieces it in safek isur situation, perhaps the drop of milk is already annulled in the first meat piece. So this is annulment of a safek isur. And with safek isur there is no bitul isur Lechatechilla. But for the Tur and Rema, the objection is due to the possibility to verify each of the meat pieces (there are upper the water's level) if one piece have milk taste it's "nevela". When one can check the situation, the din is not safek. So shaking is mevatel isur Lechatechilla.

10 added 22 characters in body
source | link
9 added 31 characters in body
source | link
8 added 137 characters in body
source | link
7 added 634 characters in body
source | link
6 added 292 characters in body
source | link
5 added 99 characters in body
source | link
4 added 2 characters in body
source | link
3 added 18 characters in body
source | link
2 deleted 2 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link