In Siman 319:2 the Mechaber writes:
הבורר אוכל מתוך הפסולת, בידו, להניחו אפילו לבו ביום, נעשה כבורר לאוצר וחייב
to which the Mishna Berura Seif Katan (9) comments:אוכל מתוך הפסולת - דפסולת מתוך האוכל אפי' לאלתר חייב וכדלקמיה ומש"כ בידו ה"ה בקנון ותמחוי
The difficulty is his comment that ומש"כ בידו ה"ה בקנון ותמחויIn Siman 319:1 the Mechaber writes:
הבורר אוכל מתוך פסולת או שהיו לפניו שני מיני אוכלים ובורר מין ממין אחר, בנפה ובכברה חייב; בקנון ובתמחוי, פטור אבל אסור.
Clearly, borer with a k’non or a tamchui is only assur mid’Rabbanan, so why does the Mishna Berura write that where the borer is ochel from p’soles, but not l’alter, it is assur mid’Oraissa if done with a k’non or a tamchui?
וצריך עיון
Rav Ostroff has sent me the following comment on the above:
I think the answer is that a k'non and tamchui will only be d'Rabbanan when done l'alter and ochel from p'soles, but p'soles from ochel is d'Oraisso , because even when separated by hand it is d'Oraisso, being that it is derech beraira.
5 comments:
B"H
The lashon of Shulchan Aruch HaRav 319:1 and 319:2 indicates that seif 1 is only referring to separating for immediate use. Seif 2 is referring to separating for non-immediate use, which is always chayav, even if done by hand. If the Mishna Berura had not mentioned kanon and tamchuy in seif katan 9, we might think that using these to separate for non-immediate use would be patur aval assur mid'rabbanan. The Mishna Berura is teaching us that that is not the case. Shulchan Aruch HaRav explains the whole inyan by reference to derech achila.
Kol Tuv,
Yechiel.
I have now added Rav Ostroff's comment directly on the original post.
B"H
Thanks. I might not have posted if I had realised that Rabbi Ostroff had responded, but I think that our answers are similar.
Yechiel.
That's OK, Yechiel. You weren't to know and your comments are most welcome.
And if your answer was similar to Rav Ostroff's, well that only goes to show what a good Talmid of his you are! :-)
Kol Tuv.
B"H
Thank you for the compliment:-)
Post a Comment