Friday, November 17, 2006

extinguishing for enjoying food

נחלקו רש"י והר"ן ועוד ראשונים אם מותר לכבות אש לרבנן לצורך יו"ט. דהיינו אם ביתו יתעשן ולא יהיה לו מקום לסעוד ויצטרך לאכול בצינה ושרב די"א דמותר אף לרבנן כיון שזהו אוכל נפש ויש אוסרין. ומחלוקתם צריך ביאור
ונראה, דהנה בלתקו השיפוד וכדומה דהוי מכשירי אוכל נפש יש פה תרתי לריעותא. א' שלא מתעסק באוכל ממש, וב' דזה רחוק מההנאה של יו"ט דהיינו יש שתי שלבים עד שיגיע ההנאה. וא"כ בכיבוי יש רק חדא לריעותא דהרי לא ממש מתעסק באוכל להשביחו אך מצד שני ההנאה מגיעה מיד כשמכבה ובזה נחלקו הראשונים אם רבנן מודים. לא רציתי להאריך אך לפ"ז יובנו שתי התירוצים של תוס' בכתובות ז ע"א ומובא ברא"ש הכא

4 comments:

Avi Lebowitz said...

r' yossi,
it sounds like you are explaining the machlokes to be whether putting out a fire in your home (that will leave you with no place to eat) is considered ochel nefesh or machshirei ochel nefesh. i don't think that is correct bec. even if it is a machshir, it would be a machshir that could not have been done from before that even the rabonon are matir. the point of argument would have to be whether we consider the kibuy to save the house ochel nefesh = mutar, or just a han'as haguf litzorech yom tov = asur (which we are not matir kibuy for as we see from tashmish hamita). i still think your point is valid in that since you are not directly involved in any type of food activity when you put out a fire in your home, so acc. to rashi it does not qualify as ochel nefesh.

Yossie Schonkopf said...

reb avi,
it is acc to rav yehuda that you may only do machshirin that you were not able to do before y"t, acc to rabanan there is no diference...
bodily needs are permitted on y"t acc to beis hillel as in heating the house, sending cloths on y"t thru reshos harabim etc. it was acc to beis shamai that we had a hava amina that bodily needs would be ochel nefesh and we retracted that...

Avi Lebowitz said...

you are right that the gemara (beitza 28b) makes the distinction between machshirin that could and could not have been done before, within r' yehuda. i got somewhat confused bec. we pasken like r' yehuda in that we permit machshirin that could not have been done before (shulchan aruch 495:1). It is difficult to understand why over here we do not pasken like the braisa which is r' yehuda and allow extinguishing a fire bec. of the smoke. the rosh (19) says that even though we pasken like r' yehuda, we are machmir to pasken like the rabonon here since it is not "ochel nefesh mamash". you are right that the machlokes rishonim would be about machshirei ochel nefesh - as you explained. but, l'maseh we pasken like r' yehuda, nevertheless we are not meikel for the smoke ruining the house bec. it is more removed from even being machshirei ochel nefesh. regarding the smoke ruining the pot, i found that the m.b. 614:4, explains that although it is machshirei ochel nefesh it is still too removed from the "tikun ochel" so we are machmir.

Yossie Schonkopf said...

r avi,
with tremendous joy i refer you to the ritva 23a brought in the shita:
וז"ל:...ואף על פי שאין הכבוי הוא העושה הצלי כיון דבשעת הכבוי ממש נכשר האוכל שרי עד כאן."