Bishul After Afeia/Tzleia and Vise Versa

What is Hilchos Shabbos | Rabbi Meir Finkelstein (Yeshivat Kerem B'Yavneh)?

Shiurim by Rabbi Meir Finkelstein in KBY.

Enjoyed? Your feedback means a lot to us. Click here to email us: https://tinyurl.com/thanksEN

Donations: https://www.kby.org/english/support-us/?id=46

In 39b writes as follows: It is, you see the ד dalet of the עין משפט Ein Mishpat. If you don't have, oh, not everyone has a ברכות Brachot. בסדר Beseder. אולי להסתכל עם מישהו Ulai lehistakel im mishehu. The גמרא Gemara is if you have the ד dalet of the עין משפט Ein Mishpat, so go a line below that where it says דרש רב נחמן Darash Rav Nachman. The גמרא Gemara says as follows: דרש רב נחמן משום רבינו ומנו שמואל Darash Rav Nachman mishum rabbeinu u-mannu Shmuel. So Rav Nachman says in the name of Shmuel. שלקוס Shlakos. שלקוס Shlakos means a cooked vegetable. מברכין עליהם בורא פרי האדמה Mevarchin aleihem Borei Peri Ha'adama. The ברכה bracha is a בורא פרי האדמה Borei Peri Ha'adama on a cooked vegetable. וחבירינו היורדים מארץ ישראל ומנו עולא משמיה דרבי יוחנן Ve-chaveireinu hayordim me'Eretz Yisrael u-mannu Ulla mishmei de-Rabbi Yochanan. עולא Ulla in the name of רבי יוחנן Rabbi Yochanan אמר שלקוס מברכין עליהן שהכל נהיה בדברו amar shlakos mevarchin aleihen Shehakol Nihyeh Bidvaro. A very interesting שיטה shita that if you ever find yourself in a ישיבה yeshiva that learns כיצד מברכין בעיון Keitzad Mevarchin be-iyun, you might want to explore that. That a cooked vegetable, so you make a שהכל Shehakol on, you don't make a האדמה Ha'adama according to עולא Ulla. And ואני אומר במחלוקת שנויה va-ani omer bemachloket shnuya and I say it's a מחלוקת machloket. דתניא De-tanya, the ברייתא braita says: יוצאין ברקיק השרוי ובמבושל שלא נימוח דברי רבי מאיר Yotzin berakik hashuruy u-vemivushal shelo nimuach divrei Rabbi Meir. So שלושים יום קודם החג Shloshim yom kodem hachag, we're also, it's a good time to learn some הלכות פסח hilchos Pesach. If you have a רקיק rakik, which means a loaf, which now in this context it's talking about, we don't usually think of מצה matzah as a loaf, but a loaf of מצה matzah, right? So you have מצה matzah, so that is שרוי shuruy, it is soaked, or it's מבושל שלא נימוח mevushal shelo nimuach, or it's cooked but it has not dissolved. So רבי מאיר Rabbi Meir says you could be יוצא מצה yotzei matzah with that. ורבי יוסי אומר יוצאין ברקיק השרוי אבל לא במבושל אף על פי שלא נימוח Ve-Rabbi Yossi omer yotzin berakik hashuruy aval lo bemivushal af al pi shelo nimuach. And רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi says you could be יוצא yotzei with soaked מצה matzah but you cannot be יוצא yotzei with cooked מצה matzah even if it has not dissolved. ולוהי Velohi. So the גמרא Gemara thinks, רב נחמן Rav Nachman is suggesting that the מחלוקת machloket between רבי מאיר Rabbi Meir and רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi here parallels the מחלוקת אמוראים machloket Amoraim. That if you say you could be יוצא yotzei with cooked מצה matzah, so you see that even though you have cooked מצה matzah, מצה matzah needs to be baked. So even though you have cooked מצה matzah, which was a baked food, it's still called מצה matzah. So similarly if you cook a vegetable, it'll still be the same food and you'll make a האדמה Ha'adama. And the other שיטה shita says no, if you cook מצה matzah, so then you can't be יוצא מצה yotzei matzah because it's not מצה matzah anymore. So similarly if you cook a vegetable, it's not a vegetable anymore and you make a שהכל Shehakol, not a האדמה Ha'adama. That's the suggestion here. The גמרא Gemara rejects it: ולוהי Velohi. It's not correct. דכולי עלמא שלקוס מברכין עליהן בורא פרי האדמה Dekulei alma shlakos mevarchin aleihen Borei Peri Ha'adama. Everyone agrees you make a האדמה Ha'adama on cooked vegetables. ועד כאן לא קאמר רבי יוסי התם אלא משום דבעינן טעם מצה וליכא Vead kan lo ka-amar Rabbi Yossi hatam ela mishum de-ba'inan ta'am matzah ve-leika. When it comes to מצה matzah, what's the reason that if you cook the מצה matzah you can't be יוצא מצה yotzei matzah? Not because cooking makes it into a new food. Right? You still make a האדמה Ha'adama if you cook the vegetables. The reason you can't be יוצא yotzei with cooked מצה matzah is because there's a הלכה halacha of טעם מצה ta'am matzah. מצה Matzah needs to taste like מצה matzah and if you cook מצה matzah it no longer tastes like מצה matzah and that's why you can't be יוצא yotzei. Special הלכה halacha in הלכות מצה hilchos matzah. Really cooking does not undo the identity of the food. Special הלכה halacha in הלכות מצה hilchos matzah. That's the גמרא Gemara in מסכת ברכות Masechet Brachot. If you have a פסחים Pesachim, so you can close your ברכות Brachot, you won't need the ברכות Brachot again. Open up to the גמרא פסחים Gemara Pesachim please, to דף מ\"א עמוד א' Daf Mem-Alef Amud Alef. Let's read this גמרא Gemara inside and then we won't do any more reading inside. One more גמרא Gemara we have to see inside. The גמרא Gemara says in פסחים דף מ\"א עמוד א' Pesachim Daf Mem-Alef Amud Alef as follows: תנו רבנן Tanu Rabbanan. It's the two dots towards the top, about seven lines down. תנו רבנן Tanu Rabbanan. במים Ba-mayim. There's a הלכה halacha that the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach must be roasted, צלי אש tzli esh. You are not allowed to cook the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. ובשל מבושל במים U-vashel mevushal ba-mayim. The פסוק pasuk says you're not allowed to cook it in water. So the גמרא Gemara wants to know, is it only water you can't cook it in? What if you cook it in a different liquid? אין לי אלא במים שאר משקין מנין Ein li ela ba-mayim she'ar mashkin minayin? What if you cook it in a different liquid? So אמרת קל וחומר Amarta kal vachomer. It's a קל וחומר kal vachomer. ומה מים שאין מפיגין טעמן אסורין U-mah mayim she-ein mefigin ta'aman asurin. Water doesn't change the taste and yet it's still אסור assur. So שאר משקין she'ar mashkin, if you will cook the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach, I don't know, in orange juice, or you'd cook it in, you know, something else that actually changes the taste, so לא כל שכן lo kol sheken? So it's a כל שכן kol sheken that that would be an איסור issur of בישול קרבן פסח bishul Korban Pesach. That's the תנא קמא Tanna Kamma. רבי אומר במים אין לי אלא מים שאר משקין מנין תלמוד לומר ובשל מבושל מכל מקום Rabbi omer ba-mayim ein li ela mayim she'ar mashkin minayin Talmud lomar u-vashel mevushal mikol makom. רבי Rabbi says no it's not a קל וחומר kal vachomer, it's a פסוק pasuk, ובשל מבושל u-vashel mevushal. The double לשון lashon of ובשל מבושל u-vashel mevushal teaches you that even if you cook it in other liquids that's a violation of בישול קרבן פסח bishul Korban Pesach. מאי בינייהו Mai beinaihu asks the גמרא Gemara. What's the נפקא מינה nafka mina whether it's a קל וחומר kal vachomer or it's a פסוק pasuk? איכא בינייהו צלי קדר Ika beinaihu tzli kedar. The נפקא מינה nafka mina is pot roast. What if you have something that has no liquid? So there, if you cook it with without any without any liquid, so it's cooked rather in the liquid that comes out of itself. It's in its own in its own whatever you call it, the liquid that comes out of the meat. So another נפקא מינה Nafka Mina is pot roast. What if you have something that has no liquid? So there, if you cook it without any liquid, so it's cooked rather in the liquid that comes out of itself. It's in its own, whatever you call it, the liquid that comes out of the meat. So what do you call it? Fat? Not a fat, juices, yeah, the juice, whatever. So it's cooked in that, so if you hold that it's a קל וחומר Kal Vachomer about מפיגן טעמא Mafigan Ta'ama, so here the taste doesn't change because it's from the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach itself. But if you hold that it's from a פסוק Pasuk, so this would also be אסור Assur from the פסוק Pasuk. Fine. Now the גמרא Gemara says, that was all an introduction to the next part of the גמרא Gemara: ורבנן האי בשל מבושל מאי עבדי ליה Verabbanan hai bashel mevushal mai avdei lei. The רבנן Rabbanan who say it's a קל וחומר Kal Vachomer, what do they do with the פסוק Pasuk בשל מבושל Bashel mevushal? מיבעי ליה לכדתניא Mibei lei lechidetanya, they need it for the following ברייתא Braita: בשלו ואחר כך צלאו או שצלאו ואחר כך בשלו חייב Bishlo ve'achar kach tzalo o shetzalo ve'achar kach bishlo chayav. What happens if you cook the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach and then you roast it? Or you roast it and then you cook it? Right? So קרבן פסח Korban Pesach needs to be roasted and there's an איסור Issur to cook it. What if you do both, one after the other? So גמרא Gemara says you're חייב chayav, you violated the איסור Issur of בישול קרבן פסח Bishul Korban Pesach in both directions. So asks the גמרא Gemara: בשלמא בשלו ואחר כך צלאו חייב דהא בשליה Bishlama bishlo ve'achar kach tzalo chayav deha bashlei. I understand if you cook it and then - I was saying frying, I'm sorry, roast, it's a roast, I meant to say roast. If you cook it and then you roast it, so then I understand why you're חייב chayav because you cooked the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. אלא צלאו ואחר כך בשלו הצלי הוא אמאי Ela tzalo ve'achar kach bishlo hatzli hu amai? If you roast it and then you cooked it, why are you in violation of the איסור Issur of בישול קרבן פסח Bishul Korban Pesach? In the end of the day it's roasted. You roasted the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. Roasted is done, so now you can't cook it anymore. אמר רב כהנא הא מני רבי יוסי Amar Rav Kahana ha manni Rabbi Yossi. רב כהנא Rav Kahana says the answer must be this is like the שיטה Shita of רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi. דתניא Detanya, like the ברייתא Braita says, we're almost finished reading inside: יוצאין ברקיק השרוי ובמבושל שלא נימוח דברי רבי מאיר Yotzin berakik hashrauy uvemevushal shelo nimuach divrei Rabbi Meir. רבי מאיר Rabbi Meir says you can be יוצא yotzeh with cooked מצה Matzah. רבי יוסי אומר יוצאין ברקיק השרוי אבל לא במבושל אף על פי שלא נימוח Rabbi Yossi omer yotzin berakik hashrauy aval lo bemevushal af al pi shelo nimuach. And רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi says, no, you can't be יוצא yotzeh with cooked מצה Matzah. So what do you see? You see רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi holds that cooking undoes something. It's no longer מצה Matzah when you cook it. So similarly here, it's no longer a roasted קרבן פסח Korban Pesach when you cook it and so you can violate בישול Bishul even after roasting. ועולא אמר אפילו תימא רבי מאיר Ve'Ula amar afilu teima Rabbi Meir. עולא Ula says no, even רבי מאיר Rabbi Meir who holds that you can be יוצא yotzeh with cooked מצה Matzah will agree over here that צלאו ואחר כך בשלו tzalo ve'achar kach bishlo, if you first roast and then you cook the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach, you'll be חייב chayav because שאני הכא דאמר קרא ובשל מבושל מכל מקום shani hacha de'amar kra uvashel mevushal mikol makom. Here there's a special פסוק Pasuk that says ובשל מבושל uvashel mevushal. עד כאן הגמרא Ad kan haGemara, we're done reading the גמרא Gemara's inside for now. But there's a big problem. תוספות Tosafot points out here on this גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim, דיבור המתחיל עולא dibur hamatchil Ula, that there is a מחלוקת machlokes between the גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim and the גמרא Gemara in ברכות Berachos. Because what does the גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim say? The גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim says that if you hold that בישול Bishul can undo צלי Tzli, you must hold like רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi who says that בישול Bishul can undo מצה Matzah. But one second, the גמרא Gemara in מסכת ברכות Masechet Berachos had a question, can בישול Bishul undo the status of a vegetable? And the גמרא Gemara said, no no no no no, בישול Bishul, nobody holds בישול Bishul undoes the status of a vegetable. Of course you're going to make a האדמה Ha'adama on a vegetable, even a cooked vegetable. It's just that רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi holds there's a special הלכה halacha in הלכות מצה Hilchos Matzah that בעינן טעם מצה וליכא ba'inan ta'am Matzah veleika. Well one second, if it's a special הלכה halacha in הלכות מצה Hilchos Matzah that בעינן טעם מצה וליכא ba'inan ta'am Matzah veleika, then why in הלכות קרבן פסח Hilchos Korban Pesach do you say that בישול Bishul undoes roasting? So it must be תוספות Tosafot says these two סוגיות sugyos disagree with each other. They disagree as to how to understand שיטת רבי יוסי Shitat Rabbi Yossi. According to the גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim, רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi is a general principle. בישול Bishul can undo a prior status. According to the סוגיא sugya in מסכת ברכות Masechet Berachos, רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi is teaching you just a דין din in הלכות מצה Hilchos Matzah that בישול Bishul can make you not יוצא מצה yotzeh Matzah because בעינן טעם מצה וליכא ba'inan ta'am Matzah veleika, but it never undoes a status. That's how תוספות Tosafot writes in פסחים Pesachim. הספר יראים HaSefer Yereim, which is quoted by the בית יוסף Beis Yosef in סימן שיח סעיף ה Siman Shin Yud Ches Seif Heh, דיבור המתחיל וכתב הרב אליעזר ממיץ dibur hamatchil vechatav haRav Eliezer MiMetz, it's on pages תד Taf Daled through תה Taf Heh in the fancy טור Tur. So the ספר יראים Sefer Yereim writes we פוסקין poskin like רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi in פסחים Pesachim that יש בישול אחר אפייה וצלי yesh bishul achar afiyah utzli. And therefore הלכה למעשה halacha lema'aseh, if somebody would cook bread on שבת Shabbos, you'd be חייב chayav. Meaning, if you have bread or let's say חלה Challah, right? You have bread that's already baked, חלה Challah that's already baked, but it's never been cooked. And now you cook it. So that's called בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah. So we פוסקין poskin, says the ספר יראים Sefer Yereim, you're חייב chayav because we פוסקין poskin like רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi according to פסחים Pesachim that it's a general principle that בישול Bishul can undo a previous status. The ראבי\"ה Ra'avyah disagrees. It's quoted there in the בית יוסף Beis Yosef as well. The ראבי\"ה Ra'avyah disagrees because the ראבי\"ה Ra'avyah says what ברכה bracha do you make on a cooked vegetable? You all know the answer. If you cook a vegetable today for dinner what ברכה bracha are you going to make? שהכל Shehakol? Really? האדמה Ha'adama. פשיטא האדמה Pshita Ha'adama. You eat when you eat a cooked carrot or you eat a cooked, you know, when you grill vegetables, you don't make a שהכל Shehakol, you make האדמה Ha'adama. So how come we פסקן *pasken* שלקות *shlakos* you make a בורא פרי אדמה *borei pri adama*? Well, one second. So it's a סתירה בפסק *stira b'psak*. If you hold like רבי יוסי *Rabbi Yosi* in פסחים *Pesachim* that בישול *bishul* always undoes a status, and the גמרא *Gemara* in ברכות *Brachos* said if you understand רבי יוסי *Rabbi Yosi* as saying בישול *bishul* undoes a status, so then בישול *bishul* undoes the vegetable status and it becomes שהכל *shehakol*, we should be making a שהכל *shehakol* on cooked vegetables. But we don't. We make an אדמה *adama* on cooked vegetables. If we make an אדמה *adama* on cooked vegetables, you're saying בישול *bishul* does not undo the status. It's just a הלכה *halacha* in מצה *matza*, בעינן טעם מצה וליכא *ba'inan ta'am matza v'leika*. If that's the case, there should be, you should be, there should be no problem to cook חלה *challa* on שבת *Shabbos*, because בישול *bishul* can't undo a status. Once something is baked, it can't be cooked. It'll still be baked bread. It won't become cooked bread. And so then there should be no problem with cooking bread on שבת *Shabbos*. And that's how the ראבי\"ה *Ravya* פסקן *paskens*. The ראבי\"ה *Ravya* פסקן *paskens* אין בישול אחר אפייה וצלייה *ein bishul achar afia u'tzliya*. מחלוקת *Machlokes* between the יראים *Yereim* and the ראבי\"ה *Ravya* הלכה למעשה *halacha l'maaseh*. The בית יוסף *Beis Yosef* writes that the ראבי\"ה *Ravya*'s קושיא *kushya* is a שטארקע קושיא *starke kushya*. It's a קושיא חזקה *kushya chazaka*, says the בית יוסף *Beis Yosef*, because הלכה למעשה *halacha l'maaseh* we פסקן *pasken* you make an אדמה *adama* on שלקות *shlakos*, and we also פסקן *pasken* that you cannot be יוצא *yotzei* with cooked מצה *matza*. Now, how can those two things possibly go together according to the סוגיא *sugya* in פסחים *Pesachim*? It must be we פסקן *pasken* like ברכות *Brachos*. Right? In this ישיבה *yeshiva*, ודאי *vadai*, we פסקן *pasken* like ברכות *Brachos*. So the, so, so there's no הלכה *halacha* that בישול *bishul* undoes the previous status, it's just a הלכה *halacha* in הלכות מצה *hilchos matza*. So how do you answer up for the יראים *Yereim*? So there are two ways to explain the יראים *Yereim*. There is an interesting רש\"י *Rashi* in מסכת חלה *Masechet Challah* that I'm not going to discuss, take a look in מסכת חלה *Masechet Challah* פרק א משנה ה *Perek Aleph Mishna Hei* and the רש\"י *Rashi*, if you want to look there how he understands רבי יוסי *Rabbi Yosi*, it's not so relevant להלכה *l'halacha* so I'm not going to discuss it, but just a מראה מקום *mareh makom* for you to have. There are two ways in the פוסקים *poskim* that you can answer up for the יראים *Yereim*. One is the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal*. The עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* can be found in מלאכת אופה סעיף קטן ט\"ו אות ב *Meleches Ofeh Seif Katan Tes Vav Os Bais*, where the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* says that the סוגיות *sugyos* are actually not at odds, because the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* says there's a big difference between what the גמרא *Gemara* in פסחים *Pesachim* is trying to suggest and what the גמרא *Gemara* in ברכות *Brachos* is trying to suggest. The גמרא *Gemara* in פסחים *Pesachim* is wondering can בישול *bishul* override צלי *tzli*? Right? If you have a roasted קרבן פסח *korban pesach*, can cooking take the place of the roasting and then it comes out that you cooked the קרבן פסח *korban pesach*? The גמרא *Gemara* in ברכות *Brachos*, however, is saying can cooking change the definition of the object? It's not a process that was done to the vegetable, it's the שם *shem* vegetable. So the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* says you could be מחלק *mechaleik*, you could say בישול *bishul* can override a prior status, but it can't change the very definition, right, the שם עצם *shem etzem*, the essential nature of what this object is. And the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* suggests that's actually what the גמרא *Gemara* in ברכות *Brachos* means when it says בעינן טעם מצה וליכא *ba'inan ta'am matza v'leika*. בעינן טעם מצה וליכא *Ba'inan ta'am matza v'leika* is a way of saying that מצה *matza* needs to be baked, and there is a type of מצה *matza* that you cannot be יוצא *yotzei* your מצוה *mitzvah* of מצה *matza* with, something called מצה עשירה *matza ashira*. מצה עשירה *Matza ashira* is מצה *matza* that doesn't taste the way מצה *matza* is supposed to taste, it's or, or it's a you know a more luxurious type of bread, we won't go into the פרטים *pratim* right now of מצה עשירה *matza ashira*, but there are different types different things that might qualify as מצה עשירה *matza ashira*. So the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* says that baked מצה *matza* is supposed to taste a certain way. If you cook the מצה *matza*, it becomes like מצה עשירה *matza ashira* because now it no longer tastes like baked מצה *matza*, it tastes like cooked מצה *matza*. So בישול *bishul* can undo אפייה *afia*. It doesn't mean it's not מצה *matza*. It's still מצה *matza*, it's just מצה מבושלת *matza mevusheles*, it's מצה עשירה *matza ashira*, which is not the מצה *matza* that you need in order to be יוצא *yotzei* your מצוה *mitzvah* of מצה *matza* with. So similarly, the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* says that's very consistent with the סוגיא *sugya* in פסחים *Pesachim*, that בישול *bishul* can override צלייה *tzliya*. Again, the meat is still meat, the קרבן פסח *korban pesach* meat is meat, it's just changing from meat that was צלוי *tzaluy* to meat that's now מבושל *mevushal*. One process can replace another process. However, when you're talking about redefining the object, so בישול *bishul* can't take a vegetable and make it not a vegetable. It's still a vegetable. So that's the difference between the two סוגיות *sugyos*, and that's the answer להלכה *l'halacha* how it could be that we make a בורא פרי אדמה *borei pri adama* on שלקות *shlakos*, on cooked vegetables, but still we פסקן *pasken*, the יראים *Yereim* פסקן *pasken*, which is to say יש בישול אחר אפייה *yeish bishul achar afia*. That's approach number one, and if you see in the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal*, the עגלי טל *Eglei Tal* points out that the תלמידי רבינו יונה *Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona* in ברכות *Brachos* on דף כז עמוד א *daf chaf zayin amud aleph* in the דפי הרי\"ף דיבור המתחיל משום *Dapei HaRif dibur hamaschil mishum*, right, in the גמרא *Gemara* it always says רבינו יונה *Rabbeinu Yona*, so it's תלמידי רבינו יונה *Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona*. רבינו יונה *Rabbeinu Yona* himself did not write that פירוש *peirush*. The תלמידי רבינו יונה *Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona* wrote it בשם *b'shem* רבינו יונה *Rabbeinu Yona*, and the ר\"י *Ri* in תוספות *Tosafos* in פסחים דף מא עמוד א דיבור המתחיל אבל *Pesachim daf mem aleph amud aleph dibur hamaschil aval* understand this way also, that again the סוגיות *sugyos* in ברכות *Brachos* and פסחים *Pesachim* are not at odds, they are one and the same approach which is different than the תוספות *Tosafos*. which says that the סוגיות Sugyos in ברכות Berachos and פסחים Pesachim are disagreeing with each other. Okay, that's approach number one. Approach number two is the ט\"ז Taz. The ט\"ז Taz is found in סימן Siman שי\"ח Shin-Yud-Chet, סעיף קטן Seif Katan ו' Vav. And the ט\"ז Taz says that even if you go with the סוגיא Sugya in ברכות Berachos that רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi is not telling you a general principle that בישול Bishul could override אפייה Afiah or בישול Bishul could override צלי Tzli. No, it's a local הלכה Halacha in הלכות מצה Hilchos Matzah that בין טעמא ולקה Bein Tama Velaka. The ט\"ז Taz says הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos was not discussed in any of these סוגיות Sugyos. Right? Should הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos be more like מצה Matzah or should הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos be more like קרבן פסח Korban Pesach / שלוקות Shlokos? So the ט\"ז Taz suggests that just like מצה Matzah is an exception to the regular rule, הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos is also an exception to the regular rule. Because when it comes to הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos, any time you change the taste through בישול Bishul, even if you haven't undone the prior process—the bread is still baked and not cooked—but if the cooking process changes the taste of the bread, so then that will be a violation of בישול Bishul. Any time you're מוסף טעם Mosif Taam a little bit, you change the טעם Taam a little bit, so the ט\"ז Taz says that would be a violation of בישול Bishul. So even if in כל התורה כולה Kol HaTorah Kula בישול Bishul is not מבטל Mevattel אפייה Afiah, בישול Bishul is not מבטל Mevattel צלי Tzli, in הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos that would count as בישול Bishul. The ט\"ז Taz brings an interesting ראיה Raayah to this idea. The ט\"ז Taz says that, you know, we have a principle called מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo and מצטמק ורע לו Mitztyamek Vera Lo. Right? We said, we learned, this takes us back to like the beginning of the year when we spoke about how even when something is מבושל כל צרכו Mevushal Kol Tzorko, so you could have מצטמק ורע לו Mitztyamek Vera Lo and מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo. מצטמק ורע לו Mitztyamek Vera Lo means the more it stays on the fire drying out, it gets detrimental to the food. מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo means it's good for the food to continue to dry and that will make it taste even better. So the ט\"ז Taz says—and this is a very unusual ראיה Raayah the ט\"ז Taz brings, hard to understand—but the ט\"ז Taz says מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo still has an איסור בישול Issur Bishul on it. If you take something that's מבושל כל צרכו Mevushal Kol Tzorko and מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo and put it on the fire, ט\"ז Taz says you'd violate בישול Bishul. So the ט\"ז Taz says what do you see? But it's fully cooked. So the ט\"ז Taz says so you see from that הלכה Halacha that any time in הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos you're מוסף טעם Mosif Taam, that's a violation of בישול Bishul even if something is already fully cooked. So similarly here, even if something is baked and so technically the cooking process can't set in because it was baked already, but if you're מוסף טעם Mosif Taam so then you'd be חייב Chayav. Now, just parenthetically, this idea of the ט\"ז Taz that you could still be חייב Chayav for בישול Bishul on מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo is mind-boggling. The אגלי טל Eglei Tal in that same מראה מקום Mareh Makom in אות Os ג' Gimmel, he says it's just not true. There's no—it's not the case that מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo still has a בישול Bishul problem. Maybe by a דבר לח Davar Lach—there's a רמ\"א Rama in סימן Siman שי\"ח Shin-Yud-Chet, רנ\"ג Resh-Nun-Gimmel I think, סעיף Seif ד' Dalet, I'm not sure, I don't remember if it's רנ\"ג Resh-Nun-Gimmel or שי\"ח Shin-Yud-Chet, one of them, סעיף Seif ד' Dalet—the רמ\"א Rama talks about a דבר לח Davar Lach, but דבר לח Davar Lach is a different story anyways with בישול אחר בישול Bishul Achar Bishul. But when it comes to a דבר יבש Davar Yavesh, certainly מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo would have no בישול Bishul concern. Take a look at the משנה ברורה Mishna Berurah in סימן Siman שי\"ח Shin-Yud-Chet, סעיף קטן Seif Katan נ' Nun, who quotes the מאמר מרדכי Mamor Mordechai that there's clearly no בישול Bishul concern after מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo. Our entire, all our שיעורים Shiurim about שהייה Shehiya and חזרה Hachzara where we were wondering is there an איסור דרבנן Issur DeRabbanan of חזרה Hachzara by מצטמק ויפה לו Mitztyamek Veyafeh Lo, but certainly there's no בישול דאורייתא Bishul DeOraisa. So it's a תמוה Tamua ט\"ז Taz to say the least. But that's just, you know, parenthetically, what to be מפלפל Mefalpel if anyone wants to discuss afterwards. Did the ט\"ז Taz really mean it? Was the ט\"ז Taz only saying it מדרבנן MiDerabbanan? Was the ט\"ז Taz only saying it in terms of מעשה שבת Maaseh Shabbos, not in terms of an איסור Issur? There's what to discuss, but let's leave that for right now. So that's okay, to תחזור Tachzor, where are we up to? We have this שיטה Shittah of רבי יוסי Rabbi Yossi that בישול Bishul undoes whatever came before it. גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim says that as a rule, גמרא Gemara in ברכות Berachos says it's only a דין Din in מצה Matzah. Problem is we פוסק Pasken like both גמרות Gemaros, so how does that work out? Because we פוסק Pasken you make an אדמה Adama on שלוקות Shlokos, so we פוסק Pasken that בישול Bishul does not override the previous process. But we also פוסק Pasken that you cannot be יוצא Yotze with מצה מבושלת Matzah Mevusheles, so we פוסק Pasken that בישול Bishul does override the previous process. So the simple way to answer that is like the רב\"יה Ravya that בישול Bishul never overrides a prior process and it's just a דין Din in מצה Matzah. What's the יראים Yerayim gonna say? Because the יראים Yerayim says no, no, no, in הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos בישול Bishul undoes אפייה Afiah, בישול Bishul undoes צלי Tzli. So according to the יראים Yerayim we have two approaches. Either the אגלי טל Eglei Tal that בישול Bishul can undo a process but it can't undo the identity of the thing itself—so it can't undo vegetableness—but it can only undo baking, roasting, etc. Or the ט\"ז Taz that just like מצה Matzah is an exception to the rule, שבת Shabbos is an exception to the rule because if you're משנה Meshaneh the טעם Taam at all, that'll be a violation of בישול Bishul in הלכות שבת Hilchos Shabbos. Any questions before we go on? It's about to get very fun. Very practical and very fun. Okay, here we go. Rabbi Willig. Rabbi Willig in the עם מרדכי Am Mordechai מסכת שבת Maseches Shabbos סימן ט' Siman Tes אות י\"א Os Yud Alef points out there are four נפקא מינה nafkamina between the אגלי טל Eglai Tal and the ט\"ז Taz. נפקא מינה nafkamina number one. What is the הלכה halacha of צליה אחר אפיה tzliya achar afiya? Right, we've been discussing so far בישול אחר אפיה bishul achar afiya, בישול אחר צלי bishul achar tzli. What about צליה אחר אפיה tzliya achar afiya? What is a very very הלכה למעשה halacha l'maaseh case of צליה אחר אפיה tzliya achar afiya? Croutons? No. Toast? No. What? Platta? Yes. And what thing that's אפוי afui might you put on the פלטה platta? חלה challa. Are you allowed to put חלה challa on the פלטה platta? Right, חלה challa is baked, a פלטה platta is צלי tzli. Right, if you put a פלטה בלעז platta balaz is a hot tray. Right, or how do you say in Hebrew? פלטה platta. פלטה platta is not a Hebrew word, right? It is? Yeah I think so. פלטה platta? Sounds Yiddish. Okay either way, became Hebrew. Right. So are you allowed to heat up your חלה challa on the hot tray, on the פלטה platta? Again assuming your פלטה platta is not adjustable so that you have no שהייה shehiya and חזרה chazara problems, or if it's adjustable you managed to do all the things we discussed that you need to make sure to not have any problems. But בסדר beseder, you've found a way to solve שהייה shehiya, חזרה chazara, and נתינה לכתחילה nesina lechatchila. Are you allowed to put the חלה challa on the פלטה platta? Right, צלי tzli, roasting, is just putting it on a surface with no liquid medium. So are you allowed to do that? So the מגן אברהם Magen Avraham in סעיף קטן י\"ז sif kattan yud zayin סימן שי\"ח Siman Shin Yud Ches, סתם סימן stam siman if I don't say a סימן siman it's סתם סימן שי\"ח stam siman Shin Yud Ches. The מגן אברהם Magen Avraham writes in סעיף קטן י\"ז sif kattan yud zayin that it is מותר mutar to take a baked food and put it next to the fire. The מחצית השקל Machatzis Hashekel explains that that's because אפיה afiya and צלי tzli have the same הלכה halacha status. So if something is already אפוי afui you're not adding anything by doing צלי tzli. The פרי מגדים Pree Megadim however in משבצות זהב סעיף קטן ז' Mishbetzos Zahav sif kattan zayin writes no, יש צליה אחר אפיה yesh tzliya achar afiya. There would be a violation to do צליה אחר אפיה tzliya achar afiya. The ארחות שבת Orchos Shabbos in פרק א' הערה ס' Perek Alef footnote Samech writes that that is only if the צלי tzli adds a little bit of a new flavor. But if the צלי tzli doesn't add a little bit of a new flavor it would not be a problem according to פרי מגדים Pree Megadim. Where does he get that from? So Rabbi Willig explains it depends on the מחלוקת machlokes אגלי טל Eglai Tal and the ט\"ז Taz. The מגן אברהם Magen Avraham who says there's no problem of צליה אחר אפיה tzliya achar afiya as explained by the מחצית השקל Machatzis Hashekel because צלי tzli and אפיה afiya are equal level הלכה halacha processes must be holding like the אגלי טל Eglai Tal that the idea of יש בישול אחר אפיה yesh bishul achar afiya is that בישול bishul can undo a prior process of אפיה afiya. So that's only if you say the second process is stronger than the first one so it's replacing the first one. But if צלי tzli and אפיה afiya are שוים shavim, they're the same level process, so once something is אפוי afui you're not adding anything by doing צלי tzli, so the second process would not replace the first process and that's why it would be מותר mutar. What does the פרי מגדים Pree Megadim hold? פרי מגדים Pree Megadim must hold like the ט\"ז Taz that it's not about replacing a process, a weaker process with a stronger process, it's about adding a little bit of a flavor. That's why the ארחות שבת Orchos Shabbos says it's only אסור assur according to פרי מגדים Pree Megadim if you add a little bit of a flavor. And the ארחות שבת Orchos Shabbos there writes נפקא מינה הלכה למעשה nafkamina halacha l'maaseh for making toast on שבת Shabbos which is the equivalent of putting your חלה challa on the פלטה platta that it would be תלוי taluy on this מחלוקת machlokes. So if no taste is added, no taste is changed at all, it's מותר לכל הדעות mutar lechol hade'os. But if there would be a little bit of a change in the taste when you put the חלה challa on the פלטה platta, so then that would be a serious מחלוקת machlokes between the מגן אברהם Magen Avraham on the one side and the פרי מגדים Pree Megadim on the other side. That's נפקא מינה nafkamina number one. נפקא מינה nafkamina number two. What is the הלכה halacha of צליה אחר בישול tzliya achar bishul? Can you think of any times this might come up להלכה l'halacha? How about everything on the פלטה platta? Forget חלה challa. Can you put anything ever on the פלטה platta? You cook chicken, you cook rice, you cook potato קוגל kugel. Can you put it on the פלטה platta? צליה אחר בישול tzliya achar bishul. I certainly hope the answer is going to be מותר mutar, right? What's that? Point according to Rabbi Willig is. Well, I understand what you're saying but let's okay let's let's see. So צליה אחר בישול tzliya achar bishul. What's the הלכה halacha? So there is a שלטי גבורים Shiltei Gibborim. שלטי גבורים Shiltei Gibborim is on דף ס\"א עמוד ב' Daf Samech Alef Amud Beis in דפי הרי\"ף dapei haRif that says יש בישול אחר אפיה וצלי yesh bishul achar afiya utzli but אין צלי אחר בישול ein tzli achar bishul. Meaning אין ein means מותר mutar here, confusingly. Meaning it does not exist. יש yesh means it exists therefore it's אסור assur. אין ein means it doesn't exist therefore It does not exist therefore it's מותר mutter. צלייה אחר בישול tzliyah achar bishul is מותר mutter. And Rabbi Willig points out that the טור Tur seems to hold that way as well. What's פשט pshat? So Rabbi Willig explains that it seems like the שלטי גבורים Shiltei Gibborim holds like the עגלי טל Eglei Tal. In which case what? The יש בישול אחר צלייה yesh bishul achar tzliyah but אין צלייה אחר בישול ein tzliyah achar bishul. Why should that work out according to the עגלי טל Eglei Tal? The answer is is because when you learn יורה דעה Yoreh Deah so there's a principle that when you have a heat medium foods can transfer taste into other foods right? If you have two hot foods touch each other. So if you cook something there's a בליעה bliyah in the entire thing. Cooking can cause a בליעה bliyah, an absorption, to happen in the entire food. When you do צלייה tzliyah so absorption only happens in what's called a כדי נטילה kdei netilah, which is, I forgot exactly the amount, some type of some measurement of a finger's worth of the outermost layer of the food but it doesn't the טעם ta'am doesn't penetrate the entire food. So Rabbi Willig points out from there you see from the יורה דעה Yoreh Deah context בישול bishul is a stronger halakhic process than צלייה tzliyah because בישול bishul penetrates the entire food, צלייה tzliyah only penetrates a כדי נטילה'ס kdei netilah's worth. If that's the case and the principle of the עגלי טל Eglei Tal is a stronger process can replace a weaker process so בישול bishul can override צלייה tzliyah but צלייה tzliyah cannot override בישול bishul. However if you hold like the ט\"ז Taz there should be no difference because the ט\"ז Taz it's not about the strength of the process it's all about is it adding flavor? So if it adds flavor if it changes the taste at all so then according to the ט\"ז Taz it should be אסור assur. What do we find in the פוסקים לדינא poskim ladina? So the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch writes in סימן שי\"ח siman Shin-Yod-Ches סעיף ט\"ו se'if Tes-Vav that if you have something that is a fully cooked dry food the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch writes you're allowed to put it next to the fire to warm up and we discussed at the time right why is this not a סמיכה smeicha issue? So that you go back to that שיעור shiur but it has to be done in a way that would work with סמיכה smeicha but again you find a way to avoid your חזרה chazarah ונתינה לכתחילה venesina lechatchila problems you're allowed to put it next to the fire. The באר הלכה Beer Halacha on the spot דיבור המתחיל והוא יבש dibbur hamaschil vehu yavesh quotes from the בית מאיר Beis Meir and the מאמר מרדכי Maamar Mordechai one second this is צלייה אחר בישול tzliyah achar bishul right? When you put something next to a fire that's roasting, צלייה אחר בישול tzliyah achar bishul. And the מגן אברהם Magen Avraham in סעיף קטן י\"ז se'if katan Yod-Zayin writes יש צלייה אחר בישול yesh tzliyah achar bishul. That's going to be אסור assur. So the חזון איש Chazon Ish in סימן ל\"ז siman Lamed-Zayin אות י\"ד ot Yod-Daled דיבור המתחיל הטור ושולחן ערוך dibbur hamaschil ha-Tur ve-Shulchan Aruch but it's written ה' ט' ו' hey-tes-shmitchick-vav meaning because that's הטור ושולחן ערוך ha-Tur ve-Shulchan Aruch. That's the דיבור המתחיל dibbur hamaschil. So the חזון איש Chazon Ish answers that since you're not absorbing a new flavor it's just getting a little dried out next to the fire it's going to be מותר mutter. So Rabbi Willig explains what's going on here? The שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch must hold one of two things. Either he must hold אין צלייה אחר בישול ein tzliyah achar bishul like the שלטי גבורים Shiltei Gibborim and that's why it's מותר mutter and he just disagrees with the premise of the באר הלכה Beer Halacha. Or he holds and this is what the חזון איש Chazon Ish is pointing out יש צלייה אחר בישול yesh tzliyah achar bishul but only if you change the taste if you change the flavor like the like the ט\"ז Taz because צלי tzli is a weaker process than בישול bishul and so therefore צלי tzli you'll only have צלייה אחר בישול tzliyah achar bishul if you change the taste. So this is a נפקא מינא nafka mina for putting things on the פלטה plata. לא מצינו lo matzinu that כלל ישראל Klal Yisrael אסר assered this so so it must be מותר mutter right? I don't is it is it possible that taste changes when you put the chicken on the פלטה plata? I have no idea ask the you know ask the guys who make the טשולנט cholent downstairs ask the the cooking experts. I have no idea but I I I I have no it would be a חידוש נפלא chidush niflah to say something like this is אסור assur because all of כלל ישראל Klal Yisrael not all of כלל ישראל Klal Yisrael but many many many רבים וטובים rabbim vetovim assume that it is מותר mutter to put things on the פלטה plata in a way that doesn't have issues of חזרה chazarah ונתינה לכתחילה venesina lechatchila. So it seems pretty clear the מנהג העולם minhag ha-olam is to be מיקל meikil at least on this. נפקא מינא nafka mina number three: what do you say about אפייה אחר בישול afiyah achar bishul? Right so we were discussing בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah before. What about אפייה אחר בישול afiyah achar bishul? The reverse. So the עגלי טל Eglei Tal there in אות ט\"ו ot Tes-Vav writes that even if you hold אין בישול אחר אפייה ein bishul achar afiyah nevertheless יש אפייה אחר בישול yesh afiyah achar bishul because אפייה afiyah gives something a שם לחם shem lechem. Rabbi Willig points out שיטתו shitahso there's a strength in אפייה afiyah that בישול bishul doesn't have so even if you say אין בישול אחר אפייה ein bishul achar afiyah but אפייה afiyah which confers upon something a שם לחם shem lechem oh that has a חשיבות chashivus as a שם לחם shem lechem so that could override the process of בישול bishul. According to the ט\"ז Taz again according to the ט\"ז Taz it all just depends practically are you changing the taste or you're not changing the taste? That's all it should be תלוי talui on. נפקא מינא nafka mina number four okay here's where you really have to hold on. נפקא מינא nafka mina number four listen carefully. What’s the הלכה Halacha of בישול אחר צליה אחר בישול Bishul achar tzliya achar bishul and צליה אחר בישול אחר צליה Tzliya achar bishul achar tzliya? Meaning the first case is you have something that was first cooked and then roasted and now you want to know if you could cook it. Second case you have something that was roasted and then cooked and now you want to know that if you could roast it. You think this never comes up, wait two minutes, we'll see that it comes up all the time. So the באור הלכה Beur Halacha in סעיף ה Sif He, דיבור המתחיל יש Dibur Hamat'chil Yesh quotes from the פרי מגדים Pri Megadim that אין בישול אחר צליה אחר בישול ein bishul achar tzliya achar bishul and אין צליה אחר בישול אחר צליה ein tzliya achar bishul achar tzliya. Meaning in both of these cases מותר muttar, says the באור הלכה Beur Halacha בשם beshem the פרי מגדים Pri Megadim. The פרי מגדים Pri Megadim brings a ראיה raya from the גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim that we saw at the beginning of the שיעור shiur. That the גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim says בישלו ואחר כך צלאו bishlo ve'achar kach tzalo is חייב chayav. When it comes to the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach, if you first cook the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach and then you roast the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach, you're in violation of the איסור issur of בישול bishul קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. So what do you see? That when you do a בישול bishul and you do a צלי tzli, you haven't removed the בישול bishul because if you would have removed the בישול bishul, then you didn't cook the קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. It's a roasted קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. אלא מאי Ella mai, even when you do בישול bishul and then צלי tzli, the שם shem בישול bishul remains and that's why you violated the איסור issur of בישול bishul קרבן פסח Korban Pesach. So if that's the case, there would be no איסור issur to do an additional בישול bishul because the first בישול bishul is still there so you're not adding anything with the second בישול bishul. That's the פרי מגדים Pri Megadim. The באור הלכה Beur Halacha disagrees because the באור הלכה Beur Halacha says that okay, the first בישול bishul is still there but the צלי tzli is also there. And so now when you do another בישול bishul, you're adding another dimension. So says Rabbi Willig, how do you understand the פרי מגדים Pri Megadim? פרי מגדים Pri Megadim makes a lot of sense according to אגלי טל Eglei Tal. If the בישול bishul is there, you're not overriding any process. If the first בישול bishul is still there, so you did צלי tzli, now you're doing another בישול bishul, well it's already מבושל mevushal, the שם shem בישול bishul process is already there. So if you understand like the אגלי טל Eglei Tal, you should not violate anything. According to the באור הלכה Beur Halacha though, the באור הלכה Beur Halacha must be holding like the ט\"ז Taz that since you're adding some flavor, it's going to be אסור assur. Fine. Then Rabbi Willig points out that we have a סתירה stira in באור הלכה Beur Halachas, because we already saw that the באור הלכה Beur Halacha in the הלכה halacha of צליה אחר בישול tzliya achar bishul, even when the flavor does not taste, right, נפקא מינא nafka mina number two, when the flavor does not change, like נפקא מינא nafka mina number two, putting cooked foods on the פלטה plata. So the באור הלכה Beur Halacha was מחמיר machmir on that שאלה shayla, which made it clear he holds like the אגלי טל Eglei Tal. But now we're saying if the באור הלכה Beur Halacha is מחמיר machmir on בישול אחר צליה אחר בישול bishul achar tzliya achar bishul even though the first בישול bishul process is still there, he's holding like the ט\"ז Taz. So which will the real באור הלכה Beur Halacha please stand up? Does he hold like the אגלי טל Eglei Tal or does he hold like the ט\"ז Taz? So Rabbi Willig says no problem, there are two דינים dinim and the באור הלכה Beur Halacha holds like both. That when it comes to צליה אחר בישול tzliya achar bishul, the באור הלכה Beur Halacha would say that you don't need a change in the טעם ta'am because צליה tzliya can override בישול bishul. He must not assume that צליה tzliya is a weaker halachic process than בישול bishul. באור הלכה Beur Halacha holds צליה tzliya can override בישול bishul. But for בישול אחר צליה אחר בישול bishul achar tzliya achar bishul, the באור הלכה Beur Halacha says only when you add in a new flavor is it going to be a problem because you're not overriding a prior process. Where does this come up? I said this comes up הלכה למעשה halacha lema'aseh. בישול אחר צליה אחר בישול Bishul achar tzliya achar bishul or צליה אחר בישול אחר צליה tzliya achar bishul achar tzliya. So dissolving powders. If you have like Kool-Aid or something like that that dissolve in cold liquids. So let's say in a hot liquid for our purposes. So Rabbi Willig writes that he quotes from the ארחות שבת Orchos Shabbos in פרק א Perek Aleph, footnote ס\"ה Samech He, that some of these powders the way they're made is they are first cooked and then baked. So now if you put it in hot water, that is בישול אחר אפייה אחר בישול bishul achar afiya achar bishul. So is that מותר muttar or is that אסור assur? So Rabbi Willig writes ממה נפשך mima nafshach it's מותר muttar. Why? Because if you hold like the אגלי טל Eglei Tal, it's מותר muttar because we already saw from the גמרא Gemara in פסחים Pesachim the שם shem בישול bishul's still there. So you're not overriding the process. The שם shem בישול bishul's already there so adding another בישול bishul would not be problematic. And if you hold like the ט\"ז Taz that it's about changing the flavor, so the way that generally these Kool-Aid powders or whatever they are are made, Rabbi Willig writes, I didn't check up the facts so I'm relying on his facts, he says is that they don't they don't in the step in the process in which they're baked, right, they're cooked and then baked, so the baking step does not change the flavor at all. So you're not when you cook it, you're not changing a flavor that was from אפייה afiyah to בישול bishul. Whatever the flavor was after the original בישול bishul, so you're now now it's just regular אין בישול אחר בישול ein bishul achar bishul because the אפייה afiyah did not add a new אפייה-דיק afiyah-dik flavor that you're now changing with a בישול-דיק bishul-dik flavor. So ממילא mimmela he thinks that's going to be מותר mutar. Fine. So those are four נפקא מינות nafka minos between the עגלי טל Eglei Tal and the ט\"ז Taz. Let's just round out our discussion with what what do we find in שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch in terms of the עיקר דין ikar din of בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah, right? which is how we started today. So what does the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch say about בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah? So the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch, I forgot to bring my שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch, but so I'll do it outside. שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch in סימן שי\"ח סעיף ה' Siman Shin Yud Ches Seif Hei he writes as follows. I have the לשון lashon in front of me. The שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch writes as follows. לשון lashon is important. יש מי שאומר דדבר שנאפה או נצלה Yeish mi sheomer dedavar shenne'efah o nitzlah. If you have something that was baked or roasted, אם בשלו אחר כך במשקה יש בו משום בישול im bishlo achar kach bemashkeh yeish bo mishum bishul. If you then subsequently cook it in a liquid, that is a violation of בישול bishul. ואסור ליתן פת אפילו בכלי שני שהיד סולדת בו veasur litein pas afilu bichli sheini shehayad soledes bo and it's אסור assur to put bread or חלה challah even in a כלי שני kli sheini that's יד סולדת בו yad soledes bo, right? because if you remember our כלי שני kli sheini discussion, this was the one of the sources for קלי הבישול kallei habishul that we're מחמיר machmir on almost everything to treat it as קלי הבישול kallei habishul, so even in a כלי שני kli sheini we won't put bread. Then the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch writes ויש מתירים veyeish matirin. Some say it's מותר mutar. There's a question: what does this ויש מתירים veyeish matirin mean? Is it ויש מתירים veyeish matirin in a כלי שני kli sheini but everyone agrees it's אסור assur in a כלי ראשון kli rishon? Or is it ויש מתירים veyeish matirin that even in a כלי ראשון kli rishon אין בישול אחר אפייה ein bishul achar afiyah? That's a מחלוקת machlokes. הרמ\"א haRama writes ויש מתירים veyeish matirin only refers to in a כלי שני kli sheini, and that's what the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah writes in סעיף קטן מ\"ג Seif Katan Mem Gimmel as well. But everyone agrees that there's an איסור issur of בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah in a כלי ראשון kli rishon. The באר הגולה Beer HaGolah, however, is מציין metzayen that the source for this ויש מתירים veyeish matirin is the ראבי\"ה Ra'avyah. But the ראבי\"ה Ra'avyah is the one who held that אין בישול אחר אפייה ein bishul achar afiyah at all. So the באר הגולה Beer HaGolah seems to have understood the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch as saying אין בישול אחר אפייה ein bishul achar afiyah even in a כלי ראשון kli rishon. That is the פסק psak of the מחבר Mechaber. So if you are a ספרדי Sefardi, so it is אסור assur to put פת pas even in a כלי שני kli sheini. There are those who are מתיר mattir, at least a כלי שני kli sheini according to the שולחן ערוך Shulchan Aruch, certainly in a כלי ראשון kli rishon would be אסור assur. הרמ\"א haRama writes, after he said ויש מתירים בכלי שני veyeish matirin bichli sheini, he adds the words בכלי שני bichli sheini to the מחבר Mechaber and then he says ויש מקילים אפילו בכלי ראשון veyeish mekilin afilu bichli rishon. He quotes הרמ\"א haRama quotes the ראבי\"ה Ra'avyah, there are those who are מקיל meikil in a כלי ראשון kli rishon. But then הרמ\"א haRama says what's the מנהג העולם minhag ha'olam? ונהגו להיזהר לכתחילה שלא ליתן פת אפילו בכלי שני כל זמן שהיד סולדת בו venahagu lehizaher lechatchilah shelo litein pas afilu bichli sheini kol zman shehayad soledes bo. הלכה למעשה halacha lemaaseh we are מחמיר machmir. We do not put baked foods in even a כלי שני kli sheini that is יד סולדת בו yad soledes bo, so חלה challah, bread, we would not put in a כלי שני kli sheini on שבת Shabbos because we'd be concerned about the איסור issur of בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah. So הלכה למעשה halacha lemaaseh, can you dip your חלה challah into your soup? Right? Are you allowed to dip חלה challah into soup? So what number כלי kli is your soup bowl? שני Sheini? שלישי Shlishi? It's like a שני sheini. שני Sheini and a half? No such thing as שלישי shlishi. Well we have a few שאלות shailos here, right? Number one, does כלי שלישי kli shlishi exist, like Avram's bringing up? Someone mentioned ladle. Right, that's So what's the status of a ladle? So we saw already that the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah is מחמיר machmir on both of those things. The משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah is מחמיר machmir and he thinks כלי שלישי kli shlishi doesn't exist, and the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah is also מחמיר machmir that a ladle, and especially if you if you kept it in the in the hot hot soup for until it was steaming, would have the status of a כלי ראשון kli rishon, right? because the walls are hot and that's characteristic of a כלי ראשון kli rishon. It is therefore surprising that the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah here in סעיף קטן מ\"ה Seif Katan Mem Hei writes that if you ladle out from your soup pot and put it in a soup bowl, that soup bowl has the status of a כלי שלישי kli shlishi, משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah says, has a status of a כלי שלישי kli shlishi, and it's מותר mutar to put bread inside of it. What's going on in the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah? What's going on in the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah? He didn't So Rabbi Wiederblank explained that the פשט pshat is, and I think this is the the general understanding in the פוסקים poskim, that fundamentally the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah is מחמיר machmir on כלי שלישי kli shlishi and fundamentally the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah is מחמיר machmir on ladles as well. But יש בישול אחר אפייה yeish bishul achar afiyah is already a חומרא chumra, right? הרמ\"א haRama כבר quotes ויש מתירים veyeish matirin. It's a מנהג לכתחילה minhag lechatchilah to be מחמיר machmir. So the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah say you don't need to be מחמיר machmir so far to be מצטרף metztaref all the חומרות chumros, to be מחמיר machmir on ladles and on כלי שלישי kli shlishi and on בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah. It's enough to be if you're being מחמיר machmir on בישול אחר אפייה bishul achar afiyah, within that you could be מיקל meikil to treat the ladle like a כלי ראשון kli rishon. Sorry I said the ladle before, it was wrong before because I was saying the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah treats it like a כלי ראשון kli rishon. That's true, but the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah goes back and forth in different directions. Sometimes the ladle's like a כלי ראשון kli rishon, sometimes the ladle's like a כלי שני kli sheni. If, no, I'm sorry, again, again, again, again, again, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I confused myself. Again. What I was saying before was correct, that the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah in general is מחמיר machmir to treat the ladle like a כלי ראשון kli rishon, which would make your soup a כלי שני kli sheni. Here the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah is saying you could be מיקל meikel and treat the ladle like a כלי שני kli sheni, which would make your soup a כלי שלישי kli shlishi. That's one קולא kula. And the second קולא kula is you can assume that כלי שלישי kli shlishi exists and that you could be מיקל meikel on כלי שלישי kli shlishi. That's only in the confines of the חומרא chumra of יש בישול אחר אפייה yesh bishul achar afia. If you were dealing with something that would be בישול bishul proper, the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah would be מחמיר machmir to treat the ladle like a כלי ראשון kli rishon and he would be מחמיר machmir to say that כלי שלישי kli shlishi is no different than a כלי שני kli sheni, like the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah we saw would not allow you to make tea in a כלי שלישי kli shlishi, which may or may not be our next שיעור shiur. But when it's when you're dealing with יש בישול אחר אפייה yesh bishul achar afia which is already a חומרא chumra, so you don't need to be that מחמיר machmir, you could be מיקל meikel on כלי שלישי kli shlishi and be מיקל meikel on ladles. One final discussion on this סוגיא sugya before we end is what is the status of croutons? Are you allowed to put croutons in soup? So the croutons, you have to check, but the way most of our croutons are made, at least the ones I'm familiar with, I don't know if here in Israel they make different types of croutons, but at least the ones I'm familiar with is they are deep-fried. Deep-fried has the same status as cooking in הלכה halacha. So that would be מותר גמור mutar gamur, it would be מותר mutar even in a כלי ראשון kli rishon because אין בישול אחר בישול בדבר יבש ein bishul achar bishul bdavar yavesh. So provided that the croutons are deep-fried, that would be no problem at all. חזק וברוך רבותי chazak ubaruch rabosai. Is it possible that it's written by different people? Yes, yes, that's what Rav Schachter might tell you. I didn't hear Rav Schachter say it about this, but Rav Schachter said that about others. Rav Schachter once said if you go look at the original manuscript of the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah, you can see that different parts are written in different handwriting, because the חפץ חיים Chafetz Chaim oversaw the whole project, but different family members wrote different parts. So that's why Rav Schachter does not always get so concerned by a סתירה stira in the משנה ברורה Mishnah Berurah. Most פוסקים poskim, however, try to be מיישב meyashev the סתירה stira. But yes, especially like here, it's different if you have one like כ kaf is so-and-so, something like ה hei, here it's in the same סימן siman. But we'd have to go see if these parts are written in different handwritings. Rav Schachter said you can go see.