Sharp Foods: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical") |
|||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
* Sefer Hatrumah siman 60 holds that if one uses a meat knife to cut an onion the onion is considered meat even if the knife wasn't used within 24 hours for meat. The reason is that since the sharp food draws out a taste more powerfully than other foods it makes the absorption in the wall reinvigorated and taste good even though it was 24 hours. The Tosfot Chullin 111a s.v. agav also suggests this position. The Rambam Maachalot Asurot 9:24 (as understood by Bet Yosef 96:2) argues that a sharp food is only effective if the pot was used within 24 hours. | * Sefer Hatrumah siman 60 holds that if one uses a meat knife to cut an onion the onion is considered meat even if the knife wasn't used within 24 hours for meat. The reason is that since the sharp food draws out a taste more powerfully than other foods it makes the absorption in the wall reinvigorated and taste good even though it was 24 hours. The Tosfot Chullin 111a s.v. agav also suggests this position. The Rambam Maachalot Asurot 9:24 (as understood by Bet Yosef 96:2) argues that a sharp food is only effective if the pot was used within 24 hours. | ||
* Shulchan Aruch YD 96:1 cites the rishonim who are lenient as long as the knife was eino ben yomo and then quotes the Sefer Hatrumah as some say to be strict. See also Shulchan Aruch YD 96:3, 103:6, and 114:8. Kaf Hachaim 96:11 explains that we're concerned for both opinions. The Rama 96:2-3 is strict for the Sefer Hatrumah as and that is the consensus of Ashkenazic poskim including the Shach 96:6, Aruch Hashulchan 96:4, and Badei Hashulchan 96:20. | * Shulchan Aruch YD 96:1 cites the rishonim who are lenient as long as the knife was eino ben yomo and then quotes the Sefer Hatrumah as some say to be strict. See also Shulchan Aruch YD 96:3, 103:6, and 114:8. Kaf Hachaim 96:11 explains that we're concerned for both opinions. The Rama 96:2-3 is strict for the Sefer Hatrumah as and that is the consensus of Ashkenazic poskim including the Shach 96:6, Aruch Hashulchan 96:4, and Badei Hashulchan 96:20. | ||
* Bet Meir YD 96:3 writes that we're not concerned after the fact if a sharp food was cut with a meat knife which was eino ben yomo and added to a dairy food or the opposite. His reasoning is that it is two chumrot to say that nat bar nat is treated as one transference of taste and also to say that if it is eino ben yomo we treat it as ben yomo.</ref> Some say this is only rabbinic while most assume it is | * Bet Meir YD 96:3 writes that we're not concerned after the fact if a sharp food was cut with a meat knife which was eino ben yomo and added to a dairy food or the opposite. His reasoning is that it is two chumrot to say that nat bar nat is treated as one transference of taste and also to say that if it is eino ben yomo we treat it as ben yomo.</ref> Some say this is only rabbinic while most assume it is biblical.<ref>[http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=947&st=&pgnum=41 Knesset Yechezkel 24] writes that the fact that a dvar charif only reinvigorates eino ben yomo taste is only rabbinic.</ref> Some Sephardim hold that if the meat knife was eino ben yomo when used to cut a parve sharp food the sharp food is still parve.<ref> | ||
Shulchan Aruch YD 96:1 cites the dispute whether a dvar charif can reinvigorate tastes in pots that weren't used within 24 hours. The primary opinion is lenient. This is reiterated in Y.D. 96:3 and O.C. 447:8. However, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 103:6 quotes an opinion that a dvar charif reinvigorates taste that wasn't used within 24 hours. This is reiterated in YD 114:8. The Peleti 96:5 answers that Shulchan Aruch held that we only assume a dvar charif reinvigorates taste if it originally forbidden, but for something that was originally permitted it doesn't since there is also the factor of nat bar nat. This corroborated by many achronim cited by Yabia Omer 8:43:5 including Eliya Rabba 447:24, Chachmat Adam (Binat Adam Shaar Isur Vheter 48), Pri Megadim M"Z 96:10, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Taz 96:16 in first approach), and Knesset Hagedola (hagahot hatur 96:18). Yabia Omer OC 8:43:5, Yalkut Yosef Isur Vheter v. 2 p. 12 and 362, and Horah Brurah 96:11 agree that for eino ben yomo and for heter dvar charif isn't an issue. It is only a problem for when using a prohibited knife or a meat knife to cut something sharp that is dairy.</ref> | Shulchan Aruch YD 96:1 cites the dispute whether a dvar charif can reinvigorate tastes in pots that weren't used within 24 hours. The primary opinion is lenient. This is reiterated in Y.D. 96:3 and O.C. 447:8. However, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 103:6 quotes an opinion that a dvar charif reinvigorates taste that wasn't used within 24 hours. This is reiterated in YD 114:8. The Peleti 96:5 answers that Shulchan Aruch held that we only assume a dvar charif reinvigorates taste if it originally forbidden, but for something that was originally permitted it doesn't since there is also the factor of nat bar nat. This corroborated by many achronim cited by Yabia Omer 8:43:5 including Eliya Rabba 447:24, Chachmat Adam (Binat Adam Shaar Isur Vheter 48), Pri Megadim M"Z 96:10, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (on Taz 96:16 in first approach), and Knesset Hagedola (hagahot hatur 96:18). Yabia Omer OC 8:43:5, Yalkut Yosef Isur Vheter v. 2 p. 12 and 362, and Horah Brurah 96:11 agree that for eino ben yomo and for heter dvar charif isn't an issue. It is only a problem for when using a prohibited knife or a meat knife to cut something sharp that is dairy.</ref> | ||
# If someone cooks a parve sharp food in a pot that is eino ben yomo that cooking doesn't make the pot considered as though it is ben yomo.<ref>Shach 95:7 and 122:2 writes that using a dvar charif doesn't reinvigorate the taste in the pot that it should be considered ben yomo. Chachmat Adam 48:16, Chavot Daat 95:8, Pri Chadash 122:2, and Aruch Hashulchan 122:9 agree with the Shach. Nekudat Hakesef the son of the Shach 122 argues with his father. Dvar Charif p. 74 is lenient. He points out that the Magen Avraham 451:31 who holds that even nat bar nat bar nat is forbidden with a dvar charif this too would be forbidden.</ref> | # If someone cooks a parve sharp food in a pot that is eino ben yomo that cooking doesn't make the pot considered as though it is ben yomo.<ref>Shach 95:7 and 122:2 writes that using a dvar charif doesn't reinvigorate the taste in the pot that it should be considered ben yomo. Chachmat Adam 48:16, Chavot Daat 95:8, Pri Chadash 122:2, and Aruch Hashulchan 122:9 agree with the Shach. Nekudat Hakesef the son of the Shach 122 argues with his father. Dvar Charif p. 74 is lenient. He points out that the Magen Avraham 451:31 who holds that even nat bar nat bar nat is forbidden with a dvar charif this too would be forbidden.</ref> | ||
