1. Does something qualify as being able to be eaten raw and therefore not a problem of bishul akum, if it can be prepared to be eaten raw but instead was cooked? Meaning do we say that since salmon can be eaten raw by salting it i.e. lox, salmon that is cooked by a goy is not bishul akum? It seems from Tosafos that eaten raw must be an achila chashuva, and the proof is that meat that is salted although it can be eaten raw, it is still a problem of bishul akum. If it would be considered an achila chashuva to eat raw salted meat, would Tosafos say that there is no issur at all of bishul akum on meat! It seems clear that even if salted meat would be an achilah chashuva, Tosafos would say that salted meat is not bishul akum. Also, logically the heter is bec. the non-jews involvement in something that could have been eaten raw is considered insignificant. This would only apply to an item that could have been eaten prior to cooking as is, and was then cooked, but we certainly would not say that since it could have been prepared some other way without using heat, it can now be eaten when a non-jew cooked it. Therefore, Tuna fish that is cooked by a non-jew should be a problem of bishul akum, even though some eat small amounts of it while wrapped in seaweed and rice.
2. Tosafos 46b (d.h. drabbi yossi) discusses one who had their "gid" cut off, whether they can convert since milah can't be performed. It seems clear from the gemara in Avoda Zarah 27a "a women is like she is mahul", that the absence of an orla is tantamount to actually having a bris. However, this is only true if we assume that a ger who converts after being circumcised does not need hatafas dam (rabbeinu chananel). But according to the Behag who makes a distinction that a previously circumcised ger who had the status of an orel needs hatafos dam, but a child who was born mahul does not need hatafas dam since he never had status of an orel. Based on the Behag, one can argue that a women "is like she is mahul" bec. she never had the status of orel similar to a child born mahul, but one who had their gid cut off is like a goy who was circumcised prior to conversion who had the status of orel and needs hatafas dam. One could argue that since he has no gid and hatafas dam can't be done, he cannot convert. That is why Tosafos after quoting the Behag needs to be mechadesh that when hatafas dam is impossible i.e. when his gid was cut off, he can still convert.
7 comments:
on point 1. maybe if something has an achila chashuva with out cooking it can then be eaten even while cooked (as in veggies), why do you assume not?
on point 2. spiritually speaking, a woman is considered mahul because whatever the milah accomplishes she doesn't need spiritually because she has it already. this fits well with what you say. Same goes for other things, woman doesn't need a minyan because she can connect without it, etc. A woman is more spiritually complete then a man and needs less mitzvos. As the rambam says that milah has to do with controling the lust for arayos, now I ask you who has a bigger yetzer man + milah or women sanz milah?
really? a woman is "spiritually speaking" more "spiritually complete" than a man - so why would the mishna say in horyos that give the choice you would save the man and watch the woman die? unless you can explain that one, the spiritually complete stuff sounds like apologetics to me (but of course i preach the same apologetics).
dear anonymus:
i agree with your first point. it lich'ora qualifies as a davar she-ne-echal kemot shehu chai.
on point two, aside from sounding apologetics, we are here discussing the halachic aspects and not the hashkafic aspects. unless one is a talmid of R' Shimon bar Yohai one perhaps should stay away from these things.
simple, you need to save the man because he has more to do in order to finish his tafkid, the woman is born half way there already. if you look it from hashem's perspective he need the man to finish his job.
do you really believe what you are saying!? if a women is born perfect maybe she shouldn't be born at all? so in that case why should there be any women in the world? maybe the whole purpose of women being born is to serve man and create more men! well that sound even more absurd and there goes your apologetics!
so we may as well say that a man has more mitzvos and through them can achieve higher levels of serving G-d than a woman. that would explain everything.
Perfect? no. more in tuned with spirituality. more complete then a man. A preK teacher that goes to teach little kids, she or he is more complete then the kids they are teaching, so what are they doing there? Taching.
The woman is there to keep the man grounded. She also has her challenges and her yetzer hara, surely she has a tafkid, and yes part of her tafkid is to make the man a success, but its not her weakness but her strength.
why is this apologetic? and if not then what? what do you purpose? why did g-d make them if all that is important is the man?
(note: that when answering this question it is correct to say that a man has more mitzvos etc. but one has to also dig deeper, why is it that a man has more mitzvos? if g-d is all good and wants only good, surely he could have created a world with only men? why the woman? and we discuss g-d as female (shchina) are we insulting him? does HE have a purpose?
Regarding point #1 - Bishul Akum.
The question is, the 2 heterim of bishul akum: 1. eaten raw, 2. not fit for kings table - would the heter apply to the same item prepared completely differently from the way it is being prepared?
I do agree with the comments above, that regarding the issur being able to eat it raw, it would not qualify as "eaten raw" if it could only be eaten through some significant process to replace cooking such as pickling, smoking, salting... but if it can just be prepared differently and would then be eaten raw, then it can be eaten even if cooked by a goy. based on this sushi fish would be matir a goy to cook salmon and tuna. BUT, regarding the heter of not being fit fot a kings table, that certainly depends on how the food is being served. One cannot say that all potatoes are unfit for a king since in the form of potato chips they are unfit. Clearly it is not dependent on the type of food, rather on the way it is prepared.
Post a Comment