Kosher, Kashrus and Hechsherim Master thread

[imayid2]

  ומ"מ בדיעבד אם נפל חרדל לתבשיל אינו אוסר תס"ד סק"ו.

I don’t see any inference to a specific teretz

'נפל'

That is the lashon of the Remah in תנג

[imayid2]

@moko thank you very informative.

Where is the RSZA that you mentioned @55:38 that עירוי מע"ג האש is the same as אבן מלובן?

(shoutout to dansdeals noted at 56:50)

I don’t get the whole to to about maple syrup. As Rabbi Auerbach noted anything treif is certainly batul.

[madhocker]

I don’t see any inference to a specific teretzThat is the lashon of the Remah in תנג

According to the first teretz, נפל of the Rem"a is lav davka. So if the מ"ב says נפל he is restricting the heter to this case only.

[imayid2]

According to the first teretz, נפל of the Rem"a is lav davka. So if the מ"ב says נפל he is restricting the heter to this case only.

I do not agree to this diyuk. There is no indication that he is addressing the question at all.

[madhocker]

I do not agree to this diyuk. There is no indication that he is addressing the question at all.

It is highly unlikely that he ignored the very relevant words of the chok yaakov which are on the spot here. He is most likely referencing the second teretz that only if it falls in by itself is it batel.
Furthermore, in the שער הציון he refersus to ש"א. it is ידוע that this usually means the Gra"z, and the Gra"z clearly is choshesh for the second teretz of the  חק יעקב.

[imayid2]

It is highly unlikely that he ignored the very relevant words of the chok yaakov which are on the spot here. He is most likely referencing the second teretz that only if it falls in by itself is it batel.
Furthermore, in the שער הציון he refersus to ש"א. it is ידוע that this usually means the Gra"z, and the Gra"z clearly is choshesh for the second teretz of the  חק יעקב.

This is pure conjecture and projection. And ש״א does not mean Graz.

He is מעתיק the מג״א and מחצית השקל. They seem to be learning that there is no rov against the חרדל so the question literally doesn’t start.

The חק יעקב is going on the case of the מהרי״ל, the MB doesn’t elaborate on that at all.

[madhocker]

The חק יעקב is going on the case of the מהרי״ל, the MB doesn’t elaborate on that at all.

-1. this is projection.

The חק יעקב has 2 תירוצים how to answer the סתירה in the רמ"א. He is not going on the מהרי"ל at all.

[madhocker]

This is pure conjecture and projection. And ש״א does not mean Graz.

He is מעתיק the מג״א and מחצית השקל. They seem to be learning that there is no rov against the חרדל so the question literally doesn’t start.

After he is מעתיק them, he moves on to the דין בדיעבד, in which he says the key word of נפל. this is not העתקה of the מ"א anymore. It is the הלכה למעשה based on the taz and ש"א.

[imayid2]

After he is מעתיק them, he moves on to the דין בדיעבד, in which he says the key word of נפל. this is not העתקה of the מ"א anymore. It is the הלכה למעשה based on the taz and ש"א.

There is zero diyuk from the word נפל, that is the לשון הרמ״א. The ש״א is clearly a reference to the מחצית השקל who that lashon is from basically word for word.

[madhocker]

There is zero diyuk from the word נפל, that is the לשון הרמ״א.

According to the first teretz, נפל of the Rem"a is lav davka. So if the מ"ב says נפל he is restricting the heter to this case only.

Every word in the מ"ב is מדוייק. He is only מתיר if it was נפל and not if it was put in בידים.

[imayid2]

-1. this is projection.

The חק יעקב has 2 תירוצים how to answer the סתירה in the רמ"א. He is not going on the מהרי"ל at all.

This is incorrect. He has one teretz for the Remah, and it has nothing to do with what you are trying to be midayek.

[imayid2]

Every word in the מ"ב is מדוייק. He is only מתיר if it was נפל and not if it was put in בידים.

The lashon of the Remah is not בדקדוק in general?

Just say that it is clear in the Remah in your opinion that if it’s בידים it’s not permitted. There is nothing more to see in the MB. He did not get involved in that shaalah.

[madhocker]

There is zero diyuk from the word נפל, that is the לשון הרמ״א.

So what is the מ"ב opinion in the matter? He just ignored this important נפ"מ from the גר"ז חק יעקב, and just brought the unclear lashon of the Rem"a, for us to decide for ourselves which תירוץ is להלכה?

[madhocker]

This is incorrect. He has one teretz for the Remah, and it has nothing to do with what you are trying to be midayek.

The ועוד י"ל in the חק יעקב is another תירוץ for the רמ"א. Please explain otherwise.

[imayid2]

So what is the מ"ב opinion in the matter? He just ignored this important נפ"מ from the גר"ז חק יעקב, and just brought the unclear lashon of the Rem"a, for us to decide for ourselves which תירוץ is להלכה?

That is what I call conjecture and projection!

He is not being misyachis to the shaalah. He learned like the mag”a so there is no question to be answered.

[imayid2]

The ועוד י"ל in the חק יעקב is another תירוץ for the רמ"א. Please explain otherwise.

No, it is explicitly going on the מהרי״ל

[madhocker]

The ש״א is clearly a reference to the מחצית השקל who that lashon is from basically word for word.

You may be correct on this point. Be that as it may, the גר"ז is machmir.

[imayid2]

Be that as it may, the גר"ז is machmir.

This is true. Though I’m not clear if a non Jew is the same.

רב יצחק אלחנן is מיקל

[madhocker]

He is מעתיק the מג״א and מחצית השקל. They seem to be learning that there is no rov against the חרדל so the question literally doesn’t start.

where do you see such a משמעות?

[imayid2]

where do you see such a משמעות?

There is no reason to say there is, so why invent it and have shver?

Anyway see פרי מגדים א״א who is explicit that there is no rov