האם להזהר בבישול טיפות מיים - רב דגני כהן - כולל נחל חיים

Kind: captions Language: en [Music] Want to skim milk from a container first, what about boiling? Should he feel those drops inside the plate? Or a person who ate a salad with a dressing of lemon or vinegar and things like that and then wants to put some stew from the first vessel, does he need to wipe the lid first or not? And if we have time, I will also talk about the issue of the pot cover that you lift and drops come out inside the sages or on the plate. Yes, is there a problem with that or not? Then regarding the boiling water from the first vessel on wet cups, there is a ruling in the Agrarot Moshe. He ruled for the prohibition. He ruled for the prohibition, saying that one should wipe the cups before pouring your broth on them. His prohibition is complete. Two things. First, he brings that an Iron cooks in a bowl of peel. This is the first thing and the second thing. We will evaluate this matter half a lesson, half a lesson. Is it forbidden from the Torah or from the rabbis? What is meant by half an approval? When the Torah does things, it is the measure of the thing. If a person does half of this, is the prohibition certain? He is not obligated to sin if he does so, but is it still a prohibition from the Torah or not? So first thing about cooking, where did you see it in the Gemara? What is the lesson of cooking? We saw in the Gemara that you saw that you were a beautiful woman. You were a groger in cooking. No, no, no. In cooking. No, no. In cooking. It is written correctly. And everything. We see that in the Gemara, it is not the same in everything. What is the ruling on cooking? So there is a Rambam. There is no Gemara. There is no such Gemara. There is no such Gemara. But Rabbi Rambam, in Chapter 20, Chapter 9, Halacha A, he writes that cooking is an amount that is enough to extract a small organ from it. Yes, many say that a small organ is not a finger, but rather a part of a finger. This is a lesson. And so the Hagaltan brings. Where did the Rambam get this? The money is a Mishnah, and Ramech writes, "I didn't know where he got this from, and it is necessary." So everyone talks about this lesson. This bull, but where did the Rambam actually get this? The money is a Mishnah. It is known that it is the Beit Yosef. He brings a source. At first, the Beit Yosef didn't want to make the Beit Yosef on the column. He wanted to make the Rambam on the column. Yes, he wanted to make the Rambam on the money. That was his plan at first, but later he was afraid that he would be considered racist that he was only going after the Sephardim. For the Sephardim. So he did it on the on the column yes there you take only the Rambam what about the rest of the poskim so he did it on the column later at first it was the main connection it was on the Rambam so the Rambam like this he said like this is like this but we will go by according to the Rambam that this light is this we have nothing else ask about him where he got it from but it is the Rambam anyway now the gerut Moshe writes even though when you judge boiling water on the cup you do not intend to boil it but it is still a pasig rasha yes now it is a pasig rasha dala nekhla or it does not care to is it the same thing I care or was included this is another lesson in itself but the Meraish mat Yehuda he believes that it is not the same but most poskim disagree with him that I do not care the kev not nekhla so it is a pasig rasha dala nekhla which is on the prohibition of the Torah in his opinion because it is half a lesson but since the pasig rashon for challah is a prohibition of the rabbis and therefore he claims that the cups of the light of the zion in part 2 chapter 3 also The ruling is like the Igraot Moshe, that one should wipe the glasses, but he wrote one thing, one little thing, different, if it is about what you have in a glass or a plate of water that will already be boiled once, then it is already different. Add another Rambam, that there is no cooking after cooking, go, yes, and also Iroi, those who believe that Iroi does not cook, and also, oh, there is no Iroi, but rather, Iroi, yes, as you saw in the Tosafot, but go, go, go, because it interferes and does not cook, disagree that when they say go, go, it is only that it is a large quantity, but a small quantity, yes, but these are more combinations to make it easier, so Rabbi Ben Zion wants to make it easier if it is about something that has already been cooked, yes, for example, you ate it on a plate, something that is cooked, maybe something that is cooked, for example, cooked, it is something that has already been cooked, so it can be made easier, yes, it turns out to be a problem to say in a salad, yes, salad, no, but he is talking about your blood, Shabbat, ripe, I can pray with this, what if you eat raw salad, and that is true, then it is a salad, wait for Rabbi Ovadia, wait, no, but right now, according to the mitzvah, wait, no, but right now, according to the mitzvah, you will be surprised, according to the mitzvah, we will say, yes, I Hati salad chaz There are different waters because of women Fish if fish is a lump Right we are not strict on the lump Wait who said Sephardim No it is not related to the lump It is not related to the word lump No if it multiplies No Wait but infusion Now if it does not talk about infusion and then infusion Now Wait a minute You will see with the help of God in section 17 and 18 You will see with the help of God in section 17 and 18 What is the problem only with the lump It is Kamina Every first Yes Wait No No Wait But it is not that it is not bulls A lump is a lump Point How long all your life Yes All you have fried in it Okay You would not have fried a fish and you put it on the china It is in some way Cooking a lump that is on the plate It is a roast A lump You brought it to the table You took it It was no longer roasted Can you eat it You cannot give it bites I do not know You wait 10 minutes You give it a bite after half a few cases There what there you I do not do it I do not know Okay but in any case You will see in section 17 and 18 That's how it was beaten That a lump is what is a lump No it is the Shield of Abraham We do not rule We have a lesson on the subject. You don't remember the whole tour. The whole lesson was about the Gush Pinchet. The last lesson. The last lesson. Now you will see in the section, with the help of God, in section 17. When I take a ladle of sauce from the first clear. Yes, did it end? It is considered a second vessel or a first vessel. You will see a contradiction in the sequence. Yes, but to me, it is a shame if the ladle has been in it for a long time. It is not a first vessel. So it is not a Gush Pinchet. Yes, it is a contradiction in the sequence. So we have a problem with the salad. But as if Rabbi Bentzon is like Rabbi Moshe Fenen, who says, "But if it is already cooked, as we said, so he says, you know those guys who, even though people use these things that heat hot water, hot water, no, no, they didn't give hot water, and then two buttons, then you turn off one. One remains. Shabbat. Then you sat down. An electric meter. And then there is this meter. What is it when you have drained all the water. Everything is boiling. So you take water. So there is some of the water that goes inside the meter. Rabbi David writes a lesson there in this. Or is it true that he brings, but what does it bring? What does Rabbi Ben Zion bring here? What does Rabbi Ben Zion bring? He says, " You can ease up on this because it's cooking after cooking. No, but the argument is that it comes out, it cools down, it goes in, it cooks nicely once. What's the transparency that comes in? You have it constantly, you have it outside. It provokes, you don't want it. But later, when you take more water, more water will come in. They will boil, they will go in there. You feel it. But where do you get the water from?" No, you take it like that, as soon as you take some of the boiled water, it gets into a mess, you have to think about it, so why do they go into the names? To show you the water, okay, according to the rabbi, it will be permissible to open this pot. I didn't think about it. But about the files, Rashpinstein says that it is permissible to return the mashghia to this. I want to talk. Concentrate. I'm not doing one now, as Rabbi Yehuda Naftali said. Wait, my heart, the Omer will say. Part 4. Sign 33. Where he is talking about the whole subject of Psigersdolcha, which is an issue that, with the help of God, we will look at this answer because it is important to know everything that is written there. But Shemesh, oh, well, it is לד. Yes, it is לד. This is already. We will not study it because it is someone who wants to happily, but it is half. I say this, but a moment, Sik, Rash, no, I, that it is a rabbi, The story is a piece of paper, not a piece of paper, this is from the Torah. Here, Rabbi Ovadia, first of all, says that regarding infusion from a first vessel, we have studied this. There is a great disagreement among the Rishonim about whether it is as a first vessel or as a second vessel. So we have seen. We have seen that our Rabban Tam is confused. So we will talk about the Maggid Masha in the opinion of the Rambam. Because even in the opinion of the Rambam there is a disagreement about how he really believes that the head of the Shulchan Arukh, both here and in the Yoridiya, the first vessel boils at least to the extent of a kelp. But we have seen that in the Tosafot and the Chiddushei Haran and in the author of the permission of our Rabban Hananel, the Ribb Ramban, the Ridvah of Meiri, and many other Rishonim, infusion from a first vessel is considered as a second vessel and does not boil. This is a gemara. In the gemara of Shirim Meb, you need to know how to understand this gemara. That is why these Rishonim say that it does not boil at all. It does not boil at all. It is clear in these Rishonim that it is absolutely nothing. Now, this is about infusion. This is about infusion. First of all, don't tell me that it must boil. There is an initial disagreement now regarding the matter of Half a lesson, yes, half a lesson. Who told you that it is from the Torah? We see it explicitly in the Rambam, as if it is explicit. There is a dispute, but it is more correct to say that the Rambam believes that half a lesson is from the rabbis. So first of all, it is important to know the origin of this matter of the half-hour law and what the controversy is about it. There is a Gemara in Yomah, page 1, regarding the dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Rachel Lakish: Is it half a shiur if someone eats half a shiur on Yom Kippur? Yom Kippur is a day for writing to be grateful. Whoever ate half writes. Rabbi Yochanan says that it is forbidden from the Torah, no, he does not have to die, but the prohibition is from the Torah. Why is his argument in the Gemara because he insisted on adding a whole shiur? This is the argument that if he continues to eat, he will reach a whole shiur. Rashi Lakish says that it is not from the Torah. Why is it because what is written in the Torah? The language is eating. And eating less than a shiur is not called eating. Yes, what is the ruling on Tammuz 17? A person ate not such a tree, not such a tree? It is considered that he fasted or did not fast. He can say "aninu" while standing or not. So if he ate a kazait, he will continue his anit but cannot say "aninu" but if he did not eat a kazait, he will say "aninu" and say "aninu" that means he did not eat because it is not considered eating. Yochanan is because he can continue to eat here. What do we say that can start with ripeness? So exactly? So now, now, where does the teaching come from? Let's see the source. Where does the teaching of half a shiur come from? It is written in the Torah that all milk is forbidden from the Torah. It is written that all milk cannot be dreamed. The Gemara says that including half a shiur, you will say "alive." You can't, it's all milk, even if you didn't eat it, it's half a sissu, it's forbidden from the Torah. So apparently, if that's how Haran writes, he says, if you say, "Learn it from milk," then the things that are less severe than milk, you can't learn for them. You can only learn from milk, at the same level as milk, but things that are not as severe as milk, no. But later, Haran on Shavuot writes, even my brother Yalfinen from milk to other afflictions prohibits from the Torah, half a bull, why because of the filthiness, not because of the filthiness, but because of the filthiness, as Rabbi Yochi said explicitly, and if so, it's the same in all afflictions, half a shiur is forbidden from the Torah because of the filthiness, to bind it together, that is, Haran on Shavuot writes, I say this, Haran, because someone wrote in Haran's Chiddus in Tractate Shabbat that he does n't believe that, and I didn't find this Haran on Shavuot, but here Haran on Shavuot explicitly writes that half a shiur from the Torah is learned in Gal, which is the direction of Chazal Stropah, so there's no difference between the other afflictions, all the afflictions are the same, not just milk, everything. Whoever made a revolution is a wise fool. Zvi Shot Chacham Zvi, the father of Ya'avetz, many thought he was Sephardic because at the end of his answers he always writes Set and everyone translated it Sephardic. The light. Yes, until Rabbi Mazuz came and said it wasn't Sephardic. It was S. Its letters are all kinds of this, but the meaning is that he wishes for himself that his ending would be good, good, or all kinds of other acronyms because really most Sephardic poskim would write Set Set. You never saw Set say that. So many thought that the meaning was Sephardic. The light. But when they saw Shutar Hamzi who writes it. Or. It can't be Sephardic. The light is not Sephardic. But why do Sephardic poskim really think that no one is Sephardic? But Sephardic, right? No, the meaning is not mixed. No. Because there are some who are not Sephardic. Pure. The meaning is that there are some like the Ben and Nist who became both. The Torah is pure. Yes, he was Sephardic. Instead, he wrote it for himself at the end. Sephardic. But this is it. But Rabbi Mazuz pointed out that it is not at all Sephardic. Pure. Sid. Giving. Parsha. Yes, too. There are all kinds of acronyms that can be explained as meaning that he wishes himself a good end or that the intention is I am dust and ashes as if to him my opinion is like saying to him my opinion at the end of the answer. So the sage Zvi the sage Zibi wrote that he was accurate from the Tosafot and then many were accurate from most of the Rishonim, such as the sage Zvi Dick that the whole issue of half a shiur is forbidden from the Torah only regarding the matter of hila, not the song of the torments, and this caused a huge dispute between the Rishonim and the Achronim. Is half a bull that Rabbi said that the halakha is like Rabbi Yochanan, half a bull is forbidden from the Torah, which they have only regarding eating and in everything else? Oh, where did he announce this from the expectations that there are no more explicit Rishonim except explicit Rishonim like Haran and explicit Rishonim like the Rambam? There are some Rishonim. Yes, yes, yes, and I will read you some variations. Yes, the accuracy is very interesting because the accuracy that the sage Zvi made in the Tosafot to say that it is only regarding eating. The Mishnah Berura in the explanation of the Halacha, Semenesh, proved that Dyik is not correct in the Tosafot and Rabbi Moshe Levi Menochat Ahava proved that the Mishnah Bora did indeed Dick is correct. In the Tosafot it is very interesting to read the commentary on this halachic law and the Menochat Ahavah on it because the Menochat Ahavah is a posek and I will say I will define the later Menochat Ava is a posek that there is a clear line from the Torah in everything and Rabbi Ovadia believes that it is only in eating. This is a dispute between these two last ones. You decide if there are many Rishonim not Rishonim here Rishonim but but everything everything comes from the language of the Gemara and the Tosafot it starts with the language of the Gemara everything comes from there. If there is a clear statement that Ran says there is no you have Rishonim who talk about it as if half of the lesson is from the Torah half of the songs Rabbis but they didn't start to argue where they get it from. The Tosafot he brought it out he argued so that's why there is something there is something there is something there is something there is to discuss about if there is doubt as if there are Rishonim Rishonim as if I have accuracy in the Tosafot I will explain it this way or that way yes well but well but you also have the first sukkot like this and the second sukkot like this so it is a doubt no the question the question in everything you need to know what the source of the subject is yes no if Listen, there is a seer. Come listen, come listen, come listen, the whip, the wise man, how is he thick? Otherwise, he says on the day of the Lord, it is written half a shiur. Yes, he says like that. All milk. The whole Gemara itself says. All milk, including a half-shiur. What is this? Milk is forbidden from the Torah. Only in an animal. Milk from an animal is permitted. What is the ruling? Milk from an animal is doubtful. An animal is doubtful. Yes, so what do I do with the milk of an animal? Then the Gemara says. All milk, including a half-shiur. What is this? Why is it written? A question. What is this? Including a light. It cannot be. The Torah did not have a question. It cannot be. There is a verse in the Torah. There was no question. Either it is an animal or it is an animal. It is not a living thing. The Holy One, blessed be He, knows. If there was. There could not be a verse about this. The Torah does not have a verse about this. Your question. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I do not understand you. A dumb person. The Torah knows what a son or daughter is. The Torah knows. You do not know. Okay, right. So there are laws about a dumb person. There is a law. A verse in the Torah of the Torah. There cannot be a verse. Why? But the Gemara. You do not know. Go to my law. The doubts are what, but the sages, the sages tell you what to do with the law, so you can say, but there is no verse in the Torah that tells you what to do, in doubt, to the Holy One, blessed be He, there is no doubt, but but He knows that there are such miztas, no, I provide, you will act in the law of doubts, doubt, generational, severity, but it cannot be that he will write you a verse, the complete one, it certainly says, it is complete, apparently, the complete one is more correct, the Gemara is explicit, yes, all milk, including koy and half a shiur, now he says, if all milk, it is not to tell you, it is to tell you, including also the koy, then Rabbi Yochanan wrote, for half a shiur, is forbidden from the Torah, for the breast, for the strophe, this is not the main point, but the main point, all, including half a shiur, yes, I mean, without you, that alone is a tstrophe, what would I think, all milk, is only for the koy, all milk, is to attach you also to the koy, which is forbidden, and I would think that half a shiur, is permissible, that is why he brought you this thing about the breast, this is to attach to the tstrophe, Rabbi Yochanan, but this is not the main teaching, therefore it remains about eating, and not about the rest of the things, this is the teaching that seems to be From this, the accuracy of the additions that the sage makes, my situation is not accurate, eating is what, because it is an explanation that it is only about eating, a halal is eating, yes, how in cooking it is not in everything, it is only in the matter of milk, how in cooking in everything, yes, even if you do not have such milk, olive, it will be forbidden, it is only in eating, think logically, in eating you eat a bite and another bite, always in stages, but in cooking you cannot cook, the hikmat, the hakam, the nakfak, the mina, is huge in everything, in terms of the quality of the Sabbath, the plucked one needs two hairs, whoever plucks one hair or a nazir two hairs, he plucks only one hair or takes from one place to another, half a shiur, a prohibition from the Torah or from the rabbis, this is a nakfak from many things to doubt, and all these things, yes, now, because this is a nakfak, the great mina, and as we said in the sign that we see a huge halachic biro that he brought explicitly that Magen Avraham believes that half a bull is from the Torah, even in the laws of the Sabbath, yes, and then he wants to prove, not like the sage Zvi, I told you, Rabbi Moshe Levi answers all the proofs of The Mishnah is clear, but the Rambam, the Rambam, writes like this: Chapter 1 Halacha 3. Everywhere this is the language of the Rambam. Everywhere it is said that the one who does something is exempt. What is the meaning? Everywhere the Rambam writes about what he is going to write now. The Rambam, wherever he does something, is exempt. He is exempt from the kerat and from the sacrifice. That is, it is no longer from the Torah. But it is forbidden to do that thing on Shabbat, and its prohibition is from the words of the scribes. And he is a wise man from the work. This is the introduction of the Rambam. That is how he writes. Therefore, if you look, look now in Chapter 11, on the thread, he writes like this: The one who writes one letter is exempt. The one who spends less than a shiur is exempt. And also, everyone who does a work from the works is half a shiur exempt. What do you learn from the Rambam? Yes, there is a Tosefta, also an explicit Tosefta in the egg. The one who kills one thread. The one who writes one letter. Rabbi Eliezer is obligatory. And the Sages say that it is not except because of shavuot. Why is it half a shiur that is obligatory? Really, it is obligatory. Yes, what does he think that half a shiur is obligatory on him. Or is there no shiur for all these things? Time is obligatory. From the Torah, only. Why is there no obligation to eat half a loaf of bread from the Torah? Then why did you say Torah, when it is not only obligatory, but not the Torah? When does a person receive a bed that he did this work? If he did half of the work, the Torah is not obligatory without the tax from the Torah? Yes, it is not obligatory, it will be like him who has no deed in him. Yes, it is for him because he is not a slave. No, it is for him. No, it is not obligatory. It is forbidden. Yes, it is forbidden. But it is obligatory. Now you have studied for our Rabban. You have studied from page 1 to page 1. And you have seen that there is something about a judge and Rav Yosef the hard one, and that it is permissible to bake less than a shiur. You say less than a shiur. Then, and that it is permissible to bake less than a shiur. And the chiefs, what did he write? There is an obligation to eat half a shiur. It is forbidden from the Torah. Rishis are explicit. Yes, on this, on this. Oh, many Rishonim write explicitly on the Gemara. What Rav Yosef presented. And that it is permissible to bake less than a shiur. The intention is certainly that there is a prohibition, but the prohibition of the rabbis. Yes, and in the book of Zion, the chiefs write that he said from the Torah, for him, for all the people, she is an alma. And some also wrote, some wrote about it, that it is a single opinion on Rashi, that is, Rashi truly believes that half of what they did from the Torah, it is not that he does not believe explicitly that he writes this, but it is a disagreement in 4 Rishonim because he says, I saw in the being of the sons of Zion, the Ramban and Haran write in the novellas, and I did not find it, because I found the opposite, Haran Tsov, that yes, they say half a verse, but he says, the Ramban and Haran and Shemara and Shulvi on the book of the Goda that half a verse in the rest of the sufferings, as if it were not about eating, it is forbidden by the rabbis. What is the explanation of Rabbi Yerchanun that is useful and the Chazaltstrop? Each case must be examined on its own merits, whether it is a Chazaltstrop or not, for example, and the selector is Chazal Tstrop, the selector is one selector, yes, but Hamzi explained to you, Chazal Tstropi, this is not the main point, this is not according to the methods, since they are precise that it is a derak in eating, I say it is not specifically in eating, everything that is, for example, to solve two letters, the road to solve another one, the other in the pit, what is the meaning of the chest, the meaning of the Tsuri, that is, the usual ones do one, do the other Not a matter of the usual Not a matter of the usual I mean if you continue to do my situation I don't add because if I make a pot cook half and then after that cook another half of the lesson these are two stories there is no connection between them because it is not for nothing that the Torah said in a different way from the choice that everything is one process [music] This is if it is in one shock in one shock then also you asked a brother if it is in one shock yes that is possible now as we saw Magen Avraham does rule that half again from the Torah and also the Ben Ish Chai this is how he rules the case of Parashat Chitisa that half a lesson is prohibited from the Torah but in the course of the world he evaluates it to be a name to dispute about the Ben Ish Chai and he says that the Hershai is not a single D He brings Ovadia he takes out all the E all the Rishonim Rabbi will be the branch of Ridva Mordechai Rabbeinu Bnei Yoham HaMeiri but he says but there are many Rishonim also upside down from my head therefore the conclusion of Rabbi Ovadia that from the legal point of view it is permissible to show boiling water into a cup that was poured yes even though it was poured cold yes even though there are a few drops in it then all E and what is the point then all we saw is there is Here is a book that really sufficed, what does it mean? No, I have a problem. I want coffee or it should be hot. Yes, because it is not easy. It does not affect everything. Or is that what he says? He says, "I want coffee or it should be hot." He tells you, "Maybe I want it later." He says, " You are on the bench. You do not know whether it does not matter or not." He says, "There is so little. So little that it will not affect this thing." That is why they call it "Nachala." But he was satisfied at first. Is it called "Nachala" because of all this? I want hot coffee. And there are cold drops here. Yes, cold drops. Where are they from? Oh, in the glass? There are cold drops here. Yes, whoever wants it very hot should clean the glass completely. Apparently, it does not bother him. Right. Now, he writes a paragraph for this. Rash Delon will be allowed. In the rabbinate, half a lesson. And in the rabbinate, everyone agrees that it is permissible, even Ashkenazim. You will see that in Shaiman, Shatza, it is explicit. Infusion is infusion. It is a dispute. He ruled like this. But it is true that it is a dispute. But some say that it does not brew at all. Yes, and some say that even in infusion from the first vessel, it is brewed. Some say that it is. Rabbis who say that it is cooking yes then there is still doubt now a Rashi in the Rabbis even if it is a land some say that it is permissible all the more so if it is not a land yes all the more now a comma of a Rabbi also a stream is permissible according to the Aaro means oh no if means if I am a Rashi allows something that I do not mean a Rashi does not mean it does not mean certainly so then it is then there is a barrage that is a thorn and a placeholder in the Emek question he brings that it is not only the Aruch he says the Bheg and the Riv that is accurate that the Riv also believes that way Rashi does not own the land yes if you do not mean it is permissible for you first in the Darn or in the Daorita it is permissible why in the way of the Torah yes in the Malka of the Torah now now not only will it be permissible now not only the Dorach rabbis for you Dora it becomes a Rabbi directly if you do not mean it does not mean second want to say it is permissible according to the Haruch it is permissible to say that it is the way of the thing according to the Aruch it will be permissible yes it is permissible even in the Daorita yes yes even I have the work of the Torah and you are not dead I do not mean it is a comma that even we wish is permissible even who says that no we will not be I don't mean to be bitter, I don't mean to be a rabbi His blessing is not appropriate for Lahorob and Dia to write like this if it is but the water they will boil is not just water from the tap certainly from the tap you are talking about what I am talking about I have the glass yes certainly it is from the tap if it has boiled then you have no problem also the rabbi there it is cold because even if it is cold because you have all the trouble also we what is it sons of a drop that will remain but it is not a thing because there are poskim there are poskim who believe something that you see there are poskim who believe something that you see that is not in the story at all but if you come from a river completely then as if there is nothing this what is it at all bass but by the fact that you are from Meni you are bothering you it does not bother me I am violating don't know know that it bothers but it happens many times this story because you wash the dishes on Shabbat after that you want to make coffee the dishes are good in the device so to begin with it is appropriate to wipe the glass it happens many times with me this story not to begin with he says not to play he says to start with let it throw but the blessing you do it like this and that even if you want you do not need without understanding what But you have to manage manage that sometimes you take here that you have power left like this like this if you are from me nothing is left these are things but it drops not left on my back wrong if you do hard I am not big still have to be careful for those who have it need to be careful it is allowed to light it is allowed to light now I stayed here there is for the reshivot it is clear that black to the estate it is not clear be careful anyway for those who have a glass glass glasses of champagne know these thin ones so in the sign in the sign of sev know what it is forbidden to wipe it on Shabbat yes because you are sick it is narrow and there is squeezing while you are doing yes explicitly Shulchan Aruch Skara that it is not consumed yes now now well, there is no no no time so I will just say right in the beginning chapters about the pot that I want to open the the the the the the yes so first thing even when I lift the When I get a kick out of you, I agree with you. First thing first, lift the covers. Gentlemen, I have, I have only two minutes. First thing, lift the covers. I'm talking about the sauce, the water that falls inside the pot. Then I'm talking about the water that falls out of the mouth and one on the cover. Three things. Okay? So we learned from Rabbi Yona about hot water. he says that hot water is hot. I am afraid that one might not be stung by it and the other might be stung by it. But if he touches it, it is permissible. That's how he writes. But in another book we saw that transfusion from a first aid kit is prohibited. why? Deirui is not like the first vessel, Rabbanu Yonah, Irui is not like the first vessel, like the second vessel, according to Rabbanu Yonah, therefore according to this method, our Rabbanu wrote that the Shammaiim are hot, that you will hunt in it, there is no problem, but later we saw Rabbanu Yonah after you who wrote that Irui is like the second vessel, apparently, it would be forbidden, but Ashkenazim, it would be permitted, because Ashkenazim, cooking after cooking, it cooled down, what cooled down, it is hot, it is a hand, you will boil it, it would not boil, it would not boil, it is hot, but it would not boil, it is very hot, very hot, it is very hot, maybe the problem is, maybe the Shulchan Aruch did ten of these, I am not asking for black, it is the first vessel, it is everything, it is not, it is not, why did he not make me? I am saying about Rabbanu Yonah, what did he say about his hero, they changed Shulchan Aruch, an assistant Shulchan, you do not lack this Shulchan Aruch, his honor, a cold erased, that is, a rashon, a Shulchan Aruch, we will sit it aside, so according to what makes an intention to cook properly, so that you did not mention it, so according to everything we saw regarding the drops in the glass, everything we saw in the lesson about this, it is beautiful, it is death, yes, and now also to bring Many more doubts to ease and I will tell you this, oh, the name of the infusion as the first vessel in Shemain, cooking after cooking, go now, even though Maran Aser was strict on both of these things, but that is true, but there are some combinations, a passig rashi, not to be consumed, a passig rashi, not to be consumed, some say that it is permissible to begin with, put it first on the fire, some Rishonim believe that such things have no importance as a craft at all, and some say that the rabbinic law is a law, and some Rishonim believe that cooking from the Torah is only about something that is not eaten as it is alive, simply a law, and some other Rishonim believe that cooking from the Torah is only about something that is not eaten as it is alive, there is no one, all this from the Torah, from the Torah, from the Torah, yes from the Torah, it is difficult here, now, this is now, and therefore many, many poskim have permitted opening the pot, even though drops fall inside this, but returning it, returning it, many poskim have written that it is right to be stricter, because when you open it many times, it has already cooled down, the drops become thick, you know all these combinations, what is the problem? Oh all the combinations it gets cold no it's not irrelevant already once but you remove you remove this doubt Shirou from the first vessel first vessel but the Lord of Zion permits but the Light of Zion permits this is the Yes this is the Ziyurt that's why they write correctly to the compiler because you remove this matter according to the Shechems certainly you can say as a yes Ishchizim certainly but the Light of Zion is a moment a moment I'll take it later come come come Rabbi gentlemen gentlemen a second second Abraham I want two minutes like that later Rabbi Mekor Ne'eman There are books by Rabbi Mazuz Mekor Asuk like in Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky Question and Answer So there is such a book Mekor Ne'eman A person who removed the lid on Shabbat as you see the tesh If the dish cooks and sees that it is finished cooking is it permissible for him to put the lid back or is it forbidden because the steam on the lid is cooking to know Maran that there is cooking after cooking Balek Answer if the steam is hot that your hand is scalded there is no cooking after cooking then it is later forbidden Short answer forbidden if I open to see within a second approaching seconds getting cold if it is hot this is according to the Herzion It must be allowed, all the best, because it has already dried up what is interesting, what is interesting, I wanted them to be cooked, I found something interesting in the book of Joseph, Joseph's lamentations, it happens like this, you take a kettle off the stove and drip some drops onto the stove, now it's on the stove or you lift the lid of the dish and drip drops onto the stove, in your opinion, is there a difference if it falls inside the pot or on the stove, falls on the fire directly on the fire, I don't know, it seems to me that it certainly doesn't block and harm it, but is there a difference in everything we learned, if it's inside the pot, no, it's not accurate, there's what's the difference, closed inside the pot, what's closed inside the pot, you open it, what's the same thing, no, but you also open the pot thing, I would think that inside the pot is less cooking, because falling on some nylon bag, oh, so it does n't matter, so he writes, it's not considered an offense, we conceived, we intend to cook those drops, and we also consider it to be dealing with a woman, and we must add here the zebra of those who say that there is no cooking after cooking, also talking about going, and the zebra of those who say that there is no prohibition on cooking on Shabbat, half a lesson, and everywhere Good times are right to give redemption, fasting, charity, a lesson of equalizing daily meals, and to set days for the Torah to atone for desecrating the Sabbath, even though he was busy with a woman, then he brings a minute, if you do, yes, okay, if you do, I am beaten, if the one who deals on the Sabbath, he brings, they bring in my robes, the jurists, he brings the disagreement of the jurists, whether the one who deals on the Sabbath is considered an offense or not, if he deals, yes or no, then the bread is a feast, he writes that it is permitted and forbidden, but the mirror in the Bible prohibits it from the rabbis, so therefore from your mouth, from the principle of the law, it must be said that he did not commit a prohibition, but some say that he deals in general with an offense, as Akiv Agar wrote and the opinion of Maran Dish in Shelah cooking, in a matter that does not require atonement, in this, a verse of Rashala does not and also the work of the Sabbath, so from the Torah in half a hour, according to you, even though it is something that he means, who is good to give redemption, but later he writes, I was also like you at the beginning, later I saw, and I need to examine inside, and so is the light in this matter, the discussion of Maran the evil, Obadiah, in repentance, in a whip, the gate of Shimon, one will be punished like this, he says that the evil Ovadia Ora I didn't see it written in the shadow of evil Ovadia ‏Ja.