All right, Achenu (our brothers), we’re learning another case in Borer (sorting). This is going to be siman Shin-Yod-Tet, and we’ll see which halachah (law) it comes out to be. So, Rabbi, didn’t we just say that the women can’t soak the lettuce in the bowl? Soaking, we said no; cleaning, yes. Soaking, no. That’s how we came out near the other halachot as well.
No. On the contrary, if it’s less dirty and you would eat it that way, then Reb Moshe says that if it’s edible that way, it’s probably not even Borer. There’s probably nothing to sort. If it’s very dirty, kol sheken (all the more so), it’s okay. They compare it to a peel. They don’t make all the chilukim (distinctions) we made yesterday. They don’t make those chilukim between the peel and the—All those sevarot (reasonings), Chacham Ovadia and Rav Moshe are both mekel (lenient). You have the Chazon Ish, who was machmir (stringent), and the Chofetz Chaim in the middle. He says a potato. Is a potato davka (specifically) a potato? Is it hu hadin (the same law) for other things? They didn’t go back and forth with the Chofetz Chaim.
So, how do you eat lettuce on Shabbat? You just clean it. Clean it, rinse it. Can you soak it on Shabbat? No soap. All right? “Thought it was said denim”—do not give Ezra an aliyah (Torah honor) until he changes his pants. I said, “Until he changes.” He’s still contemplating. Okay, like most of us.
The Mishnah is on Shabbat daf Kuf-Lamed-Zayin (Shabbat 137). “Rabbi Eliezer omer: tulin et hameshameret (straining cloth) beyom tov (holiday), venotnin litluyah beShabbat.” Meshameret (straining cloth) is the cloth they put over the keli (vessel). It’s a cloth you sift with, like cheesecloth. On Yom Tov (holiday), you’re allowed to hang it. “Venotnin litluyah beShabbat”: on Shabbat, you’re allowed to put things into something that was already taluy (hanging). You can’t be toleh (hangs) it on Shabbat; that’s probably a problem of ohel (tent). But if it’s already hanging, you’re allowed to put things in it.
“Vachachamim omerim: ein tulin et hameshameret beyom tov, ve’ein notnin litluyah beShabbat.” The Chachamim are machmir (stringent): you can’t hang it on Yom Tov, and you can’t put something into one that’s hanging on Shabbat. So the Gemara says on Kuf-Lamed-Tet, “Mai matrinan beh?” What is the issur (prohibition) if you give hatra’ah (warning) to this person? Rabbah says it is because of Borer, and Rabbi Zeira says it is because of meraked (sifting).
According to Rashi, even according to Rabbah, if they warned him that it was meraked, he is chayav (liable); the Rashba adds that even if they warned him that it was Borer, he is chayav. But according to Rabbi Zeira, he is chayav only if they warned him that it was meraked. Fine, so it’s a machloket (dispute). What are you chayav for in this case? Is it Borer? Is it meraked? It’s obviously a kind of sifting.
Open up the Rambam, rabbotai. It’s perek (chapter) Chet, halachah Yod-Alef, in Hilchot Shabbat. The Rambam writes: “Hazoreh vehaborer kiggerogeret chayav, vehamachabetz ... toldat Borer, vechen haborer shemarim (sediment) mitoch hamashkim (liquids).” If you separate shemarim (sediment) from the mashkim (liquids), it is a derivative of Borer or a derivative of meraked. So he doesn’t get involved in whether it is one or the other. He says, “Vechayav,” and explains that winnowing, Borer, and meraked resemble one another. He explains why they counted them as three: each prohibited labor performed in the mishkan (Tabernacle) was counted separately.
That’s a nice Rambam. Separating the sediments from the liquid can be either Borer or meraked. The Bi’ur Halachah on Shin-Yod-Tet, in the dibur hamatchil (opening words) “meshameret,” discusses this. Let’s read the Chafetz Chaim.
He writes that the Rambam’s ruling seems to leave in doubt whether the halachah follows Rabbah or Rabbi Zeira. One rabbi said it is Borer, and one said it is meraked. The Chafetz Chaim understands them as arguing with one another, unlike Rashi. Rashi says that if you hold it is Borer, you also hold it is meraked; if you hold it is meraked, it is only meraked and not Borer. The Chafetz Chaim says that Tosafot on daf Ayin-Gimel, amud Bet, also understand that they disagree, and that Tosafot and the Rambam explain why Rabbah does not consider it similar to meraked.
Why is it not similar to meraked? What is meraked, rabbotai? Sifting flour. They used to put flour on a sifter and shake it: the rocks stayed on top, and the flour fell through the holes. So why does the rabbi in the Gemara say that separating the sediments is not meraked?
With meraked, the entire act of sifting is performed by shaking the sifter, with psolet (waste) and ochel (food) together. You shake it, and one is separated from the other. That is not what happens here. During the separation, no action is performed on the sediments. They stay where they are, and the wine flows away from them. You’re just pouring the wine into this item. The sediments don’t go through, and the wine goes through the sieve.
Therefore, it is more similar to Borer: you take the food, while the waste remains where it is. In this case, too, that is the way Borer works. The Chafetz Chaim asks: if that is so, why isn’t every case of meraked also Borer? His answer is that meraked is different. You put everything onto the sifter, shake it, and it separates. Here, you don’t put everything onto it and perform an action; you just pour the wine. Nothing happens to the sediments. They stay still, and everything else falls through. The Rambam’s explanation differs from Rashi’s.
So the Chafetz Chaim learns that there is a dispute among the Rishonim about how to understand the Gemara. According to Rashi, if you are chayav for meraked, you are also chayav for Borer; you are chayav for both. But the Rambam says it is either Borer or meraked. He does not rule like one rabbi or the other; he understands that they are arguing.
It’s not yet a nafka minah (practical difference) for us, because we’re not chayav mitah (liable to death), we’re not matreh (warns), and we’re not giving any—But clearly, pouring wine into a strainer so that the sediments stay behind is liable for something: either meraked, Borer, or both.
In any case, we have learned that putting sediments into a meshameret on Shabbat involves chiyuv chatat (liability for a sin offering), because it is a melachah (prohibited labor) de’oraita (Torah-level). The next Mishnah he quotes is on Kuf-Lamed-Tet: “Notenim mayim al gabei hashemarim beShabbat bishvil sheyitzolu.” They pour water over sediments. What is this showing us, a sifter? HaKadosh Baruch Hu, show-and-tell. You’re jumping to the practical halachah; I’m not there yet. We’ll get to it. It’s a big question.
The Mishnah later says: “Notenim mayim al gabei hashemarim beShabbat bishvil sheyitzolu.” Although it is forbidden to put sediments on a meshameret on Shabbat in order to separate the wine from them, if you put the sediments on the cloth before Shabbat, it is permitted to pour water over them on Shabbat. What happens when you pour water through the sediments? It takes on the taste of the wine or the sediments.
At first, the water was not mixed with the sediments. When you pour it over them, it mixes with them, and afterward it separates in the meshameret. You put water into the sediments, and then it separates. The sediments remain on their own, and the water remains on its own. At first glance, that looks like Borer. Why isn’t it Borer? The Mishnah teaches that, in the interim, it mixed.
Rabbotai, you cannot put sediments onto the item, because the sediments separate from the wine; that is Borer or meraked. But if you put the sediments on the cloth before Shabbat, you can pour water over them. At first glance, the water mixes with the sediments at an intermediate stage and then separates. What is the difference between that and putting sediments and wine together, then separating the wine from the sediments? It sounds like a tea bag.
We’ll see the tea bag; that’s another question. The Chafetz Chaim says the case is either meraked or Borer, but it is clearly something, and the case of the sediments is clearly a Torah-level prohibition. In this Mishnah, though, it is not considered Borer, because you began by pouring clear water and ended up with clear water. We don’t consider what happened in the middle. You began with clean water and ended with clean water. In the first case, you put waste and food together: sediments with wine. You separated the sediments from the wine, and that is Borer. Here it is more like filtering. I began with clear water and ended with clear water. That is a sevara (reasoning).
From this, Chazak uvaruch, Isaac, it follows that one may use a kumkum teh (tea kettle) made of two parts, with a strainer fixed in the upper part to hold the leaves and water in the lower part. The old-fashioned kettles held real herbs and leaves. They didn’t want the leaves going into the water, so the leaves sat in a strainer on top. When you tilt the kettle to pour the tea, the water passes through the leaves and into the cup, receiving flavor from them.
We would not call that Borer, even though, technically, the water and leaves mix as the water passes through, and then separate. It started as good water at the bottom of the kettle, and it enters your cup as good water. We don’t care about the intermediate stage in which it receives flavor from the leaves. The reason for permitting it is that the water and leaves are separate from one another; therefore, even though the water passes through the leaves in the strainer and mixes with them, it is not considered Borer. At the beginning they were clear, and at the end they were poured out clear. This reasoning also applies to those who prohibit using an ordinary tea kettle with a strainer in its spout, where the liquid inside is mixed with leaves.
They had this other gadget. At first glance, we’ll have to see what this means for a tea bag. What is a tea bag, basically? A strainer. It’s a cloth with leaves inside. If I put it in the water, the water is good when it goes in and comes out. It went in unmixed, and it started separate. What’s the difference if I pour the water over it or put it in the water? The only thing you could tell me is that it’s Borer with a keli. Is a tea bag considered Borer with a keli? Why is it worse than the strainer? That’s also a keli that separates things.
“Because you’re mixing it with the water.” But I’m not mixing the leaves into it; it just goes through. Even if you don’t pick it up, the water goes through the bag and comes out the other side. If I hold the tea bag and pour hot water through it, why is it different from the case of the mesanenet (strainer), where I poured water onto the sediments and it passed through, receiving color and flavor? Why would a tea bag be Borer, mesanen, or meraked?
If the water and leaves were already mixed and you poured them through a strainer that held the leaves back, that would be the case of the sediments. I’m not arguing about that. But here I’m taking fresh water and pouring it over a tea bag. It goes through the bag and comes out as water. It started as water and ended as water. What’s the difference between pouring it over the bag and sticking the bag into the water? It works the same way.
You’re coming with a big chumrah that you can’t make tea on Shabbat. We always discuss kli sheni (second vessel), kli shelishi. We never discussed a bag! The bag is a problem? He’s even letting you use this gadget where the leaves stay on there and the water goes right through the leaves. That sounds like more Borer. Someone pointed out that most of the water in a cup is not passing through the bag at that moment; the bag is sitting in the water and coloring it. So all the water is me’orav. But we’re not saying that putting it in is a problem of Borer. It’s like the case of the sediments. Taking the waste out may be another matter: the bag might have water in it, so you may be taking food out with waste. I hear that reasoning. And if you go with that Taz that says if you take ochel with psolet—there’s ochel in it. Well, there’s water in the teabag. So because of that fact I’m just saying a sevara. When you would take out a little water with the teabag, which you probably always do, so it’s ochel from ochel. If you take the tea out and some water comes with it, that may be taking food with waste. But we’re not saying that making the tea is Borer. There are two stages: putting it in, and taking the waste out. We’ll see that later.
Someone suggested a simple distinction: in the sediments case, you are taking something away; in the tea-bag or kettle case, you are pouring something through and adding flavor to the water. But there is still an intermediate stage in which the water mixes with the sediments. You cannot deny that water and sediments are mixed at one point before they separate. When it comes out, I’m not looking at the beginning; I’m worried about the intermediate water. We learned from the Mishnah that pouring wine into a mesanenet is forbidden because the sediments and wine separate. So why is this different?
That is the distinction: in the first case, you take one item that is mixed with good and bad and separate them. Here, you are not taking one mixed item. You take good water, run it through sediments, and end up with good water. What do I care what happens in the middle? Shemarim are different because the grape itself is what the sediments are. The wine is coming out of the grape, and the sediments that are left over, so that is actually separating itself. Where here in the tea, the water and the bag is completely different. Separate. It’s two different items, but shemarim are one item.
But there are certain things that can mix on Shabbat. What is the definition of the law if the intermediate stage lasts only a second? What about a French press? You start with hot water, put in the coffee grounds, and then press them down. That sounds like Borer to me.
We asked that question to Chacham Ovadia once. We brought the French press to the rabbi. They said, “Ein ba’ayah, ein ba’ayah,” but I don’t know whether they explained it correctly or actually showed him the water and grounds being mixed and then pressed. We’ll have to see how a French press works in this context.
With a French press, I think the coffee is mixed in the water. You press it, and the grounds stay down; the water is cleaned. The beans are pushed to the bottom of the glass, but the coffee is still there. It just moves the grounds to the bottom of the apparatus. Unless you pour it all out, some coffee remains. You haven’t taken it out; you’ve just moved it. It may be similar to Maran’s case, where he says you have to be careful at the end of a bottle of wine, because then you may be separating the sediments. That’s why you might not pour all the wine out.
Is that considered Borer? I didn’t remove anything; I separated the waste to one side and the coffee to the other. It sounds like Borer. I didn’t take it out, but I separated it. Someone says it’s still there and there are no separate items. But I did separate it. Even when you pour the cup, it’s all mixed together; now the apparatus put most of the waste on the side. It didn’t put all of it there. Drinking is good; it wasn’t drinkable before, and now it is. That’s a big question with a French press. We have to see how it works, especially because it uses an apparatus. It may be Borer with a keli, and this keli is designated for Borer. The meshameret case wasn’t treated that way. If it is Borer, then exactly; if it isn’t, it might be like a meshameret, a keli for Borer.
It sounds like a tea bag: you put in ground coffee and pour water over it. But the difference is that in the French press the waste and food are already mixed. In a tea bag, the water starts out good and clean, and you run it through. Here, at this stage, the waste and food are mixed. In a tea bag, it starts off good, temporarily goes through, and then comes out. Here it starts off mixed, and you separate it.
We have to analyze the French press. Go to Bet for a second. The Mishnah says—We’ll Google the press and see what it looks like. We’re far from it. Who uses this on Shabbat anyway? You would use it for fresh coffee. The grounds are already roasted, so the question of cooking is out? You can deal with the cooking aspect using a kli sheni (second vessel), a kli shelishi, and so on. Hold on.
Continuing with the Mishnah, there are more cases. “Mesanenin et hayayin besudarin (cloth).” That’s another Mishnah: you can filter wine through a sudar (cloth), and through a kefifah mitzrit (Egyptian basket). In the Gemara, Ze’iri says that a person may put yayin tzalul (clear wine) and clear water into a meshameret on Shabbat without concern, but not achurim (cloudy). That means clear wine and clear water are permitted.
They challenge this from Rashbag, who says, “Tored adam chavit shel yayin, yainah ushmareha,” and puts it into a meshameret on Shabbat without concern. Ze’iri explains: “bein hagittot shanu (They taught this between the winepresses).” In the straightforward reading, Ze’iri teaches more than the Mishnah. The Mishnah permits putting wine through a sudar, but Ze’iri says that even a meshameret is permitted. The Rishonim disagree about how to explain the Mishnah and Ze’iri’s statement in the Gemara.
The sugya (Talmudic discussion) starts with “mesanenin et hayayin besudarin.” A sudar is a type of cloth. Ze’iri says, “Noten adam yayin tzalul umayim tzelulim letokh hameshameret beShabbat.” He says you can put clear wine and clear water into some kind of apparatus called a meshameret. What is he adding? He is pouring clear water or wine into a sieve. If it’s clear, why put it in a sieve? Just drink it.
The Rashba and Ran understand Ze’iri to be speaking about clear wine. Therefore, he permits putting it into a meshameret. The Mishnah, which permits only a sudar and not a meshameret, is not talking about clear wine but about somewhat cloudy wine. There are distinctions: achur legamrei, completely cloudy, you can’t do anything; achur ketzat, somewhat cloudy, it is permitted through a sudar; tzalul legamrei, completely clear, it is permitted even through a meshameret.
But the Rashba does not mean completely cloudy, so cloudy that it cannot be drunk at all. In that case, it would be actual Borer and forbidden even through a sudar. Rather, the Mishnah is talking about something somewhat cloudy that can still be drunk. In that case, a meshameret is forbidden, while a sudar is permitted. That is how the Rashba understands it.
Open up the Rambam, perek Chet, halachah Yod-Dalet. This is an important halachah for filtering water on Shabbat. In Brooklyn, where the water is drinkable, could you use a Brita or other machines where you pour water through a filter? It will depend on this.
If it is clear and drinkable anyway, perhaps it is okay. The aerator isn’t filtering; it just adds air. We discussed the water filter we have on the sink for bugs. The water is drinkable, but the Chachamim put an issur on drinking bugs. It’s a rabbinic prohibition. Could it really be considered drinkable water? Like the gid hanasheh (sciatic nerve) case, it’s like the chelev (forbidden fat) case that we said isn’t considered Borer. It is drinkable if I’m not Jewish. It isn’t bitter, doesn’t taste bad because of the bugs, and isn’t muddy. It is edible to me; I would drink it if not for the Torah. I would drink the whole thing, all the copepods in the water.
Open up the Rambam, gentlemen. I want to read Hilchot Shabbat, perek Chet, halachah Yod-Dalet. “Hayayin vehashemen vehamayim vechol she’ar hamashkim, meshameret shelahem chayav.” With a meshameret, the Rambam says, wine, oil, water, and all other liquids are subject to liability. Apparently, a meshameret is a keli designated for this kind of thing. The Rambam says it is prohibited. He gives the measure.
“Aval mesanenin yayin she’ein bo shemarim o mayim tzelulim bisudarin uvikfifah mitzrit kedei sheyehiyeh tzalul beyoter.” The Rambam permits filtering wine without sediments or clear water through a sudar, so it becomes even clearer. He allows clear wine and clear water through a sudar so they will be clearer. What do we see from the Rambam? Even when it is clear, the Rambam permits only a sudar, not a meshameret. The Rashba permits a meshameret if it is clear; the Rambam says that when it is clear, you can use a sudar.
The Rashba understands that a meshameret is permitted when the liquid is completely clear. A sudar is for something slightly cloudy but drinkable. The Rambam says no: a sudar is permitted only if it is totally clear. He gives no permission to use a meshameret. According to the Rambam, a meshameret is completely prohibited; the only permission is a clear liquid through a sudar.
See the Beit Yosef and the Gra’s explanation of the Rambam. They explain that the Rambam interprets Ze’iri’s statement as referring to the Mishnah. What Ze’iri calls a “meshameret” means a sudar. The Rambam relies on the Mishnah, which is discussing a sudar. We read the Gemara simply as using two different words: the Mishnah says sudarin, and Ze’iri says meshameret. The Rashba says they are two different items. The Rambam says that the meshameret in Ze’iri’s statement is the same as the Mishnah’s sudar.
The Rambam says a meshameret is always subject to liability. The only permission in this Gemara is a sudar, and what is permitted through a sudar? Clear water. Ze’iri tells us that, and when he says “meshameret,” he means the Mishnah’s meshameret, the sudar. According to this, Ze’iri did not add something that is not written in the Mishnah. He is explaining that when the Mishnah permits wine through a sudar, it means specifically clear liquids. A real meshameret is always forbidden according to the Rambam, and cloudy liquids are forbidden even through a sudar. The Rambam has these stringencies: only clear liquids, and only through a sudar.
There is another Rambam, perek Kaf-Alef, halachah Yod-Zayin: “Haborer haborer me’ochel le’ochel kemo shebeirerar af al pi shemutar bemalon, aval lo bekanon velo betamchui, gezeirah shema yenafeh bichvarah shehu chayav, vehamishamer shemarim, harei zeh toldot Borer, o menakeh lo.” He doesn’t want to get involved in it; see there, where it is explained.
Therefore, even though it is permitted to filter clear wine or clear water through a sudar, the Rambam says you should not make a dip in the sudar, so that it does not work in the usual way and lead you to use a meshameret. Why is a meshameret a problem? According to the Rambam, it is completely forbidden, whatever the liquid.
So, the meshameret is forbidden even if the liquid is clear. He is telling you to be careful how you use the sudar. The Rambam permitted a sudar only for clear liquids. Why a sudar? Apparently, it is not the usual item used to filter water. But aren’t you separating? Yes, but what am I separating? Clean, drinkable water. The Rambam tells you it is clean water. What is the permission if it’s clean water? I’m explaining the permission: I’m making it go from A to A-plus. If I can already drink it, that is not called Borer.
They’re also not worried that you might squeeze it out. But Borer of food from food is not allowed. What is the waste in clean water? There is no waste. I can drink it as it is. Whatever stays in the sudar is drinkable. But filtered means Borer. What did I filter? Something that is drinkable. What if you see little things in it? You could have drunk the water with those things. It isn’t filth you wouldn’t drink. I got five fruit flies. Right. All right, I took out five, I had six left, so what? Am I over on whatever I did? So I filtered it.
That’s a good question. We’re learning a new definition. If the liquid was drinkable despite the dirt, you might still be separating. With shells, I can’t eat it with the shell, or at least I don’t. Here, if you didn’t filter it, you could have drunk it. If it were cloudy, then you couldn’t use it; we’re not arguing about that. You definitely did something to separate something; otherwise, why put it through the strainer? But that doesn’t necessarily mean you separated something significant. It has to accomplish something significant. “Now I can drink it” is significant. But I could drink it anyway. I’m just making it A-plus.
That is the second opinion. The first opinion in the Gemara is the Rashba’s: completely cloudy is forbidden, somewhat cloudy is permitted through a sudar, and clear is permitted even through a meshameret. The Rambam disagrees: a meshameret is always forbidden, and cloudy liquids are forbidden even through a sudar. The Rambam permits only clear liquids through a sudar. The only thing permitted, then, requires two conditions: it must be clear, and it must be a sudar.
Now we get to the Tur. According to the Gra, the Tur says that the Mishnah’s permission to filter wine through a sudar teaches that it is permitted even through a sudar, although the sudar is not made for that purpose, because there is no prohibition of laundering. So the Tur introduces a different subject. Perhaps pouring wine into the cloth cleans it. The Tur says there is no laundering with wine; the cloth is made dirtier, not cleaner. Since soaking it does not launder it, it is permitted to filter even through a sudar, and all the more so through a meshameret.
But water is forbidden to filter through a sudar, even if clear, because of the prohibition of laundering. So even if there is no problem of Borer, pouring clear water into a sudar that is not normally used for this cleans the sudar. “sheriyato zehu kibbuso (Soaking it is its laundering).” That is a libun (laundering) issue, and sechitah (squeezing) is part of it. If the item is made for filtering, there is no laundering issue. But if it’s an ordinary cloth not normally used for this, pouring water on it launders it.
According to this, Ze’iri is speaking about water as well, and he specifically says “meshameret.” He permits clear wine or water in a meshameret, because there is no laundering issue when the item is normally used for filtering. In an item not normally used for filtering, pouring water on it would be laundering. According to the Tur, as explained by the Gra, cloudy liquids are always forbidden, whether through a meshameret or a sudar. That is because of Borer. The distinction between a sudar and a meshameret applies only to laundering.
According to the Rambam, there is no difference between a sudar and a meshameret in that way: a meshameret is always forbidden because it is a keli designated for Borer. He permits only a sudar, and only for clear liquids. The Tur’s explanation is different: clear water in a meshameret is permitted, while clear water in a sudar is forbidden because of laundering. That crystallizes the dispute.
But Maran, the Beit Yosef, understood the Tur differently. He understood it like the Rashba and Ran: cloudy liquid is permitted through a sudar but forbidden through a meshameret. The first opinion makes these distinctions: completely cloudy is forbidden; somewhat cloudy is permitted through a sudar; clear is permitted even through a meshameret.
At the end, the Tur quotes the Rambam, who permits only wine without sediments and clear water through a sudar, but not through a meshameret, and not cloudy water or wine with sediments even through a basket or sudar. Then he says that this does not seem right according to his father, the Rosh. The Rosh disagrees with both Rambam rulings and permits clear liquid even through a meshameret, and cloudy liquid through a sudar.
Now let’s see what Maran holds. Open up halachah Tet. “Meshameret, afilu teluyah me’erev Shabbat, asur liten bah shemarim.” Even if the meshameret was hanging from before Shabbat, you cannot put sediments into it. That is the regular Mishnah: you cannot pour wine into a meshameret on Shabbat, because you are separating the sediments from the wine. But if you put the sediments into it before Shabbat, it is permitted to pour water over them so that the water will become clear and drip through.
That is the first law. If I put the sediments there before Shabbat, I can add water, because I start with water and end with water; it simply passes through on Shabbat. But I cannot put the sediments into the meshameret on Shabbat, because then I am separating wine from sediments. This is where Chacham Yitzchak comes along and says that I can use an apparatus with tea leaves and pour water through the leaves into a cup. It is no different from this meshameret case.
Do we have anything from Chacham Ovadia on this? It says that even though the usual way of separating with a meshameret is permitted food from waste, a meshameret is more stringent because it is a derivative of a sieve, and it performs separation with a keli. The Ben Ish Chai says that even if you want to call it food from waste, a meshameret is a keli designated for sorting, like a sieve, so it is a problem. That is a straightforward case of Borer or meraked.
Now the next halachah: “Yayin o mayim shehem tzelulim, mutar lesanenan bimeshameret.” Clear wine or water may be filtered through a meshameret. Could that be the Rambam? It cannot be. The Rambam forbids using a meshameret. This is the Rashba’s reading of Ze’iri, and it seems to be Maran’s ruling. Clear wine and water are permitted even through a meshameret. That is a significant permission for using filters on Shabbat.
It says that even if there are small particles in the water, since most people drink it that way, it is not a problem. But with a sudar, water is forbidden because of laundering, while wine and other liquids are permitted. If the liquids are cloudy, whether water or wine, they may not be filtered. Then it brings the Rambam: according to the Rambam, a meshameret is forbidden even for clear water or wine; even through a sudar, he permitted only clear liquids, not cloudy ones.
So which opinion does Maran follow? It seems to be the Rashba. The Mishnah Berurah follows that view, and the Kaf HaChaim says to be concerned for the Rambam. We wanted to see what they say about a tea bag.
In one case, the tea kettle already contains tea leaves and liquid, and there is a kind of strainer at its spout. It says that the leaves tend to sink to the bottom while the liquid stays above, so one may pour from it on Shabbat. The water and leaves are not really mixed; the water is on top and the leaves are on the bottom, so you are not even separating anything. Also, one is not particular if tea leaves enter the cup, because they drink it without straining.
Since he does not intend to sort, it is permitted. When he reaches the bottom of the vessel, he should leave some of the tea liquid behind so that it does not look like Borer. This is a bigger case than Chacham Yitzchak’s. It is talking about a situation in which the leaves and water are already mixed, more like a French press. But here you are not particular about drinking the leaves. When pouring from the top, you have to be more careful at the bottom and leave some liquid. Even if some leaves get through, he is not very stringent.
Another passage says that it is permitted to filter mint leaves through a cloth strainer, and that there is no Borer because the water itself is clean. The strainer prevents worms from falling into the cup. That is pouring water over mint leaves on a cloth so it takes on their flavor. The question of laundering is addressed elsewhere.
But who discusses a tea bag? Someone might say that the tea bag is a keli designated for Borer. If the water really mixes with the leaves, that is the point of the bag: to separate tea from water. But the leaves are already separate. What about the filter in the sink? They’ll tell you that if the water is drinkable, it is not a problem. “Mutar lishtot miberez shemutkenet bo masnenet”—it is permitted to drink from a faucet fitted with a filter, even if it keeps insects out, because the water is fit for most people to drink without filtering. That is the answer: most people would drink it.
Is there a whole big section about how to use a tea bag on Shabbat, like all the halachot together? I don’t doubt it, though. Someone suggested looking in the Daily Halacha. It says there are many pitfalls with a tea bag: bishul, sochet, melaben. It says it is permissible to prepare instant coffee, hot chocolate, or tea on Shabbat by pouring hot water on the powder or tea leaves. That is about tea leaves and the cooking issue. The leaves inside tea bags are raw and have not been cooked; that passage is discussing cooking, not Borer.
There is also a ruling that one may remove a tea bag from a cup, and there is no concern of Borer. A solid object floating on a liquid is visible, so Borer does not apply when there is no sorting in a liquid. The Yalkut Yosef quotes Menuchat Ahavah, who says there is also no need to worry that, when removing the bag, you separate the drops falling from it from the leaves. One certainly does not intend to do that; even if drops inevitably fall, it is psik reishe delo nicha lei (inevitable but unwanted result) in an issur deRabbanan (rabbinic prohibition), and the bag is not a keli designated for this. Moreover, the separation is not done by hand but by removing the obstacle; it is gerama (indirect action).
We have all these questions. It is not a keli; it is a solid on a liquid. The discussion about bugs is in a different section, about Borer in liquids. We haven’t reached it yet. There is a passage about shaking the tea bag in the cup. Is that the case here? We’ll have to see. Who wants to say it is visible because it’s in one bag? It may be separate from the water, but it is mixed in. When I take it out and shake it, drops fall in. Is that also a problem? He says it is an inevitable but unwanted result. You don’t have to shake it. Take it out against the cup. People sometimes squeeze the last drop out, but that is another question.
Let’s not jump ahead. Here is one paragraph: “Veyesh le’orer, lamah mutar lena’ane’a hasakit betoch hakos kedei lehotzi tamtzit hateh kemo shenohagim? Harei bazeh kavanato livror hatamtzit hame’oravim be’alim meha’alim.” Why is it permitted to shake the tea bag in the cup to get the tea liquid out? Isn’t that sorting the liquid mixed with the leaves from the leaves? Shaking also helps the leaves stay inside, like a net.
The Minchat Yitzchak discussed this. We already spoke about the case in Shulchan Aruch, se’if Tet: it is permitted to pour clear water onto sediments resting in a meshameret so the water will collect the wine in them. Even though the water being filtered mixes with the sediments in the middle, the meshameret separates them again. Nevertheless, since the water went in clear, it comes out clear.
The Levush explains that the water is clear, and there is nothing in it that needs to be sorted. That makes sense if we assume the tea bag is like sediments: I’m only pouring water through the leaves, and pouring water through sediments is permitted. But if you leave the tea bag in the cup for a while, and then shake it, that may raise a concern of Borer. In the Shulchan Aruch case, the water enters and exits immediately. Some say that in that case there is no form of the labor of Borer, because everything happens at once for the purpose of imparting flavor. But if the bag remains in the cup and the leaves mix with the liquid, and afterward you perform another action to extract the liquid, that is a distinction. It may be more like separating sediments from wine.
Still, perhaps there is no Borer here in any case, because the tea bag is not considered a sieve designated for sorting. Its purpose is to place it in the cup so the water takes on the flavor and color of the leaves. Even though it is designed so the leaves do not enter the water, it is still a vessel through which water passes to receive the taste of the tea.
Only a sieve or strainer made from the outset to separate food and waste is considered designated for sorting. I heard this from Rabbi Azriel Oyerbach, and Rabbi Asher Weiss wrote similarly. When discussing shaking the tea bag after it has been placed in the cup, the concern is that the shaking helps extract the liquid mixed with the leaves. If it is permitted to sort with the help of a utensil not designated for sorting, when the sorting is defined as part of eating, then shaking the tea bag may also be permitted, since it is used only when drinking.
So he comes out and says that it is entirely permitted, because the tea bag is not a sieve or strainer, and I am using the utensil in the ordinary way of eating. Therefore, in practice, he permits it. “So don’t squeeze it at the end.” But what if the rabbi says letting it drip is permitted? That is squeezing. I don’t do that even during the week. What benefit is there? We’re discussing the practical law, not personal practices.
He says it would also be ideal to remove it this way. “How does it happen? It’s risky.” He says it is proper not to remove the bag by grasping it with the hand, so as not to cause this. It is better to remove it with a spoon. So he took back the permission? He returns to the permission, but still says it is a good idea to take it out with a spoon; it is not so simple. Rabbotai, in practice, drink clear tea.
Let’s see what we’re up to in the halachot. We’ll start from halachah Vav in the Aruch Hashulchan, Shin-Yod-Tet, and see what we’re really up to. We can start from Kaf-Gimmel.
Kaf-Gimmel says that in ancient times people ate melilot (ears of grain), as it says, “vek tavta melilot beyadecha.” They took the shibolim (stalks of grain) and separated the food from them, breaking them so the wheat came out. It is like separating kitniyot (legumes) from their sharvit (pod). Mefarek (extracting) is a derivative of Dash (threshing). What is Dash? Threshing wheat: they beat it, and the wheat comes out.
Mefarek is a derivative of Dash. Therefore, they said that on Shabbat, for spices of this kind, one rubs the heads of the fingers with a change, not with the palm of the hand, as one normally does. The food falls out. They did not make a decree that you might rub it in the usual way with your whole hand, because even if you did that, you would not be liable for a sin offering. The main act of extracting is when you take the food and open it with your hands. When you rub it and the food falls out, the prohibition is rabbinic, even if you use the whole hand. They permitted rubbing it only with the fingertips, as a change. That is the opinion of the Rif and the Rambam, perek Kaf-Alef.
Some of our authorities prohibit rubbing grain and legumes on Shabbat altogether, as it seems from Beitzah, where they permitted it only on Yom Tov and not on Shabbat; the permission on Shabbat was only to soften the food. The main ruling, however, follows the Rif and Rambam, and the Tur ruled likewise. The Shulchan Aruch says in se’if Vav that one rubs melilot with a small change, using the tips of the fingers. Although the food is extracted from the stalks, because it is done in an unusual manner and to eat immediately, it is permitted. There are those who are stringent.
Therefore, it is forbidden to extract walnuts, hazelnuts, or large nuts from their green shells. It is better to be stringent because one can eat them without removing that shell. The Rema explains that one may break them open and eat them without removing the outer shell. After breaking them open, it is permitted to peel the thin covering on the food, because extracting applies to the outer shell. With other legumes, it is permitted according to all opinions to remove the thin shell on the fruit itself. Even then, remove only what is needed for the portion you are about to eat, not to prepare it for later.
According to what has been explained, everyone agrees that it is forbidden to extract food by hand from stalks. Therefore, he protests the custom of eating legumes such as arbes by pulling them out of their pods and eating them. They break them out of the pods by hand; that is complete extraction. They aren’t rubbing them with their fingertips as a change; they are opening them normally. It would seem that not only is it forbidden, but there may be liability for a sin offering.
Some might say that the pod of the chickpea is also edible, so it is not extracting. But what about beans where the pods are not edible? Even for chickpeas, not all the pods are edible. The public should be told that there is no permission for this, unless it was prepared before Shabbat by separating them from their pods and, on Shabbat, one takes them individually to eat immediately. The great scholars have already protested this, and there is no permission for it.
That sounds like he’s angry. Look at Vav in the Shulchan Aruch: one rubs melilot with a small change, using the fingertips. The Mishnah Berurah explains that melilah is rubbing the stalks to extract the grain, which appears like Dash. The change is rubbing with the fingertips rather than the hand. “A little” means that one rubs only a little at a time. This also applies to pods of legumes: one may take out only a little at a time, with a change.
The Mishnah Berurah says it needs investigation, since the whole world is accustomed to permitting this. Perhaps, when the pods are moist, the pod itself is also edible, so it is not extracting. But for dry pods or other legumes whose pods are not edible, such as our peas, and sesame seeds in their shells, everyone agrees that it is forbidden without a change, even if one intends to eat them immediately. That is a big novelty. When we discussed onions or garlic, we said they could be handled immediately. Here he says one must use a change. Sesame, apparently, also grows in a kind of pod.
The Rema says that although extracting food from stalks is permitted when done in an unusual way and to eat immediately, there are those who are stringent. Therefore, it is forbidden to extract nuts from their green shells, and it is better to be stringent because one can eat them that way without extracting. That is the pod. The sesame grows like a pea in a pod. Baruch atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha'olam shehakol nihyah bidvaro (Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, by whose word all things came to be). Amen. Now look up the green shell of nuts. He is talking about a green shell that is not edible, not the brown covering on the nut itself. Almonds have one outside, and walnuts do too. The green shell is outside the hard shell. Once you get to the hard shell and break it, there is no problem. The issue is removing the green shell.
Anything similar to this, with a green or inedible shell, he doesn’t want you to remove. What is the difference between this and garlic? Garlic is not like a pod; it has a shell on it, like a banana. These are more similar to melilot. It is more like Dash, not a Borer issue. This is an issue of Dash and mefarek, not Borer. The Aruch Hashulchan clearly says it is rabbinic. He is talking about things such as wheat, peas, chumus, and walnuts that grow in pods. Edamame is chickpeas, no? Yeah, it’s just dried chickpeas. Edamame is like a pea.
Look at 61. Chacham Ovadia will come in and save the day. The Rema says to be careful with certain nuts on Shabbat. Menuchat Ahavah says it is forbidden to crack peanuts and almonds that are in their hard shells, even if one wants to eat them immediately. Since nowadays most are sold without their shells, he says it is complete Dash, like grain and similar items, and they may be removed only with the fingertips as a change. But he permits cracking one almond or peanut at a time and eating it immediately, even with a tool made for that purpose. That is the ruling of Chacham Ben Tzion, in Or LeTzion, chelek Bet, perek Lamed-Alef, se’if Zayin.
So Menuchat Ahavah is stringent. Who is Menuchat Ahavah? Let’s see what Chacham Ben Tzion says. “Ha’im mutar lekalef botnim mikelipatam ha’adumah beShabbat?” Is it permitted to peel peanuts from their red shells on Shabbat? He says it is permitted to peel them in order to eat them immediately. Some wanted to prohibit it, comparing it to melilot and to the Rema’s ruling about extracting nuts from their green shells. They said that since you can eat them without peeling them, you should not peel them on Shabbat. But he says that is not what the Rema meant.
The Rema is talking about the outer green shell, which does not need to be removed separately to eat the fruit; you can remove it together with the hard shell. How can the Rema mean that one can eat a walnut without removing the green shell? You can’t eat that shell. He means that you do not have to peel it separately; you can break it along with the hard shell.
That is how Chacham Ben Tzion understands the Rema. The Rema says it is better to be stringent because one can eat them without removing the shell. How can you eat it without removing it? The hard shell is underneath. He means that you don’t need to remove it separately; you can bang it on the table and both shells will break together. So they wanted to apply this to the red skin on almonds, saying that since you can eat the nut without peeling it, you may not remove the skin. Chacham Ben Tzion says that is not what the Rema discussed. The Rema was discussing an inedible outer shell, similar to a pod.
He further says that it is permitted to peel a peanut if one does not want to eat the outer covering. One is not obligated to eat the shell. Once the nut is already open, if someone doesn’t want the thin covering, he may remove it. You see that the peanut’s red covering is different. The Rema’s case is the outer green shell, which comes off together with the hard shell.
Read the last point again: removing the outer shell of nuts may be like removing grain from a stalk, and that could be mefarek, a derivative of Dash. But the thin shell that remains with the fruit is not mefarek. The same applies to removing the membrane from an egg, the thin covering on chumus (chickpeas), and similar things. There is no Dash there; mefarek is extracting it from the pod. Once you are removing that little skin, there is no problem.
Chacham Ben Tzion gives a permission: there is no problem on Shabbat with removing the inner covering of these nuts or the inner covering of chumus. The outer part, like peas and chumus, may be a problem, but we don’t eat like that. But our chickpeas usually come—The peanut in its original shell? No problem according to him. Menuchat Ahavah is stringent, though. He says it is forbidden to crack peanuts and almonds in their hard shells, even if one wants to eat them immediately, because nowadays they are generally peeled well before they are eaten and sold without shells. They are like grain and melilot. Still, he permits cracking one almond or peanut at a time and eating it immediately, even with a nutcracker, because that is the way of eating.
He explains that when something is normally extracted from its shell well before it is eaten, and stored until the time one wants to eat it, it is forbidden to extract it on Shabbat even if one intends to eat it immediately, like melilot. The Mishnah says a person may use a nutcracker to crack nuts, and the Rambam says the same. Why permit that? Perhaps because walnuts are usually sold in their shells. The same might apply to peanuts and almonds, depending on how they are sold. The source also discusses pecans: they are sold in their shells, and one may crack as many as one wants if eating them close to the meal.
Menuchat Ahavah cites the Eglei Tal: nowadays almonds are usually sold peeled, and they are peeled well before they are eaten and stored. Therefore, they resemble melilot and legumes, and it would be forbidden to peel them without a change. He says one should use the fingertips as with melilot. But another authority says that most of the time people do not crack almonds until close to eating them, so there is no concern.
The Ktzot Hashulchan says that nowadays nuts and almonds are sold peeled, so it may be forbidden to peel them even at the time of eating. But perhaps that isn’t the same as extracting them for storage. The Shevet HaLevi says that today nuts and almonds are commonly shelled in large quantities and stored or sold, so they resemble melilot and legumes. He is stringent, though he says he is not telling anyone to accept his opinion; it is his practice and the practice of his students.
Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah permits peeling almonds because, he says, people peel them at home when they eat them. Menuchat Ahavah replies that times have changed: most almonds are sold already peeled, except around Tu BiShevat (15th of Shevat). People today would be surprised to see an almond in its shell. Therefore, he says it has become an issue of melilot.
Chacham Ovadia has an argument. In Chazon Ovadiah, he cites many later authorities who support the Jewish custom of peeling nuts at the time of eating, since that is the usual way to eat them and they are fresher. Nishmat Adam says that peeling them at the time of eating is their usual way of eating them and is permitted. Maharshag says this is derech achilah, not Dash. The Tzitz Eliezer cites Rabbi Yisrael Vales, who holds that the main ruling is lenient and that this is the custom throughout the Jewish world. Dash is the work a farmer does in the field with grain; peeling these at home is ordinary eating. But the Rema also discusses nuts, and people crack them at home. Menuchat Ahavah’s argument is that they are peeled in large quantities beforehand and sold that way. Chacham Ovadia’s response is that the reality and the normal way of eating matter.
Chacham Ovadia writes that it is permitted to peel peanuts from their outer shells and to peel pistachios and similar items at the time of eating, with no prohibition of Dash, just as it is permitted to break the hard shells of almonds and walnuts to get the food inside. He cites authorities who permit it. The question is whether the fact that they are often sold already peeled changes the law. The Shevet HaLevi says it does; other authorities say that it does not, because the shell is still the normal way the item is stored until eating.
The Shevet HaLevi says he is not telling people to accept his view, but that he and his students are stringent. Menuchat Ahavah is also stringent, even if one wants to eat the nut immediately. Other authorities permit it, including Igrot Moshe, Chazon Ish, Minchat Yitzchak, Or LeTzion, Shema Shlomo, Binyan Av, and Yalkut Yosef. The Ben Ish Chai also discusses pistuk chalabi (pistachio) and permits opening it at the time of eating, not for later.
Rav Moshe Feinstein explains that the prohibition of removing a nut from its green shell is not because the existence of two shells means the upper one is automatically considered mefarek. It is because the green shell is not meant to remain with the nut, like grain in a stalk. The shells meant to remain with the fruit do not involve mefarek. The hard shell may be broken, and even the thin covering on the nut itself may be peeled.
So most of the authorities permit it. That doesn’t answer Menuchat Ahavah’s argument that the outer green shell is removed and sold separately. If the reality changes and they sell the nuts without the second shell, does that change the law? The other view is that the nuts are stored in their shells until the time of eating; it happens that companies make it easier for us by removing them beforehand. It doesn’t change the fact that these items can be served in their shells. You would be more surprised to be served peas in a pod than almonds in their shells. This is a rabbinic matter, and these nuts are commonly served this way.
So you have Chacham Feinstein, Chacham Ovadia, Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchatah, and Yalkut Yosef on the lenient side; Menuchat Ahavah and the Shevet HaLevi are stringent, requiring a change with the fingertips, but they are not saying you cannot eat them.
I saw a beautiful story in that sefer about Rav Mordechai Pogremansky, Alav HaShalom. He was a very great tzaddik and a great scholar. The Chazon Ish said that the novelty about this rabbi was that there are tzaddikim whose mouths never stop speaking Torah, and this rabbi’s mind never stopped thinking Torah.
He once said a certain sevara. Many years later, someone asked him a question about the novel idea. He replied, “You’re asking me a good question, but I’m a little older now, and my brain doesn’t work the way it did then. I’m sure I worked it out at the time, when my brain was—You have to trust me: I wouldn’t have skipped the Tosafot you’re asking about. I’m older now, and I can’t work through the whole calculation. In my prime, I wouldn’t have left that question unanswered, although I don’t remember what the reasoning was.”
He was only 45 then. He died at 50. Later in life he complained that he could concentrate on one item for 12 hours. One item, not a long piece of Torah. At the end, his brain, you know, too much pressure on his brain, he was only able to do like seven or eight hours or something. Imagine concentrating on one item without losing focus for 12 hours—not reading a book where every second there is a new insight, but one line, one reasoning about one item.
Anyway, we want to be lenient in practice. Would the reality have changed since the Shevet HaLevi wrote? He says it didn’t; on the contrary, he is discussing the modern situation, where nuts are sold peeled, especially in Eretz Yisrael. You can find nuts with their shells, but he is not going to be stringent about pistachios, which are usually sold that way. He is discussing items peeled today that might otherwise be compared to peas. Rav Moshe Feinstein says that does not change the reality. These items are normally stored in their shells; if someone else peeled them for you, that does not change the law. That is a significant leniency.
Now they sell cut fruit. Eventually, if they sell all fruit cut, will you say you can’t cut fruit? No, he wouldn’t say that.
It is permitted to extract cooked legumes from their pods, such as ful and green beans, in order to eat them immediately. Why? The outside is edible. The pods are cooked together with the legumes, and Dash does not apply to cooked items. The Arugat Habosem says that even when they are moist, the thin shell between them is eaten; the issue is specifically with dry items that you rub with your fingertips. For these, people open them in the usual way and take out the food; that is not the usual form of Dash.
Now look at Zayin in the Aruch Hashulchan. “Hayu lo chittin shenimlelu me’erev Shabbat.” If you had wheat ground before Shabbat, it may still be mixed with its chaff. You may not sift it with a kanon (sorting tray) or a tamchui (serving bowl), because even if they are not a sieve and strainer, there is a problem of separating, and you may not use both hands, shaking it from one hand to the other until the chaff comes out. That is the usual way of doing it. Rather, sift it with one hand, using force, by lifting and lowering the hand so the chaff passes through, as an unusual method. Blowing it with the mouth appears to be permitted.
The Shulchan Aruch says that if one had melilot before Shabbat, he should not sift it with a kanon, which Rashi explains is a vessel with a wide opening at one end and a narrow spout at the other. One puts the legumes in the wide opening and shakes them so the food rolls through the spout while the waste remains in the vessel. Nor may one use a tamchui or both hands. Rather, one sifts with one hand, using force. The Mishnah Berurah explains that what remains in the vessel is the waste. In the first example, what remains in the kanon is the waste, and that raises the problem of taking waste from food, as well as using a designated utensil.
The next halachah says not to soak karshinin. Karshinin (vetches) are animal food. You may not put them in water to remove the waste, nor rub them with your hand to remove the waste. But you may shake them in a sieve, even if the waste falls through the holes.
The Mishnah Berurah says that if waste and food are mixed, you may not put them in water so the waste falls to the bottom. Karshinin are animal food, and the same applies to potatoes and similar things: do not put water on them to remove dust and dirt.
But Rav Pe’alim writes that fruit that has become dirty and cannot be eaten without washing, and cheese that touched moist meat and requires washing, may be washed on Shabbat. Chazon Ovadiah cites many later authorities who say that if one washes fruit to remove dust or other dirt, even if it is stuck to it, in order to eat it immediately, there is no prohibition of Borer. He proves this from washing a bird on Yom Kippur. Washing vegetables is permitted. Ordinary washing means rubbing with the hand, not merely passing it through water.
The Shulchan Aruch also permits washing salted fish, even if there are grains of salt on it, and permits washing raw meat that has blood on it. It also permits washing dishes on Shabbat. But the permission is only for immediate use: wash it to eat it immediately, as the Rema says, and wash fruit to eat it immediately. Soaking the fruit in water so the waste sinks may be similar to soaking karshinin, which is forbidden because of Borer.
Remember, he didn’t want you to soak it because that looks more like Borer, like the case of karshinin. But if you soak it just to keep it moist, that is not a problem. Running water is okay; soaking it in order to clean it is the issue. You can clean grapes. What about potatoes? We made distinctions based on Chacham Yitzchak Zafrani’s discussion. A potato may be different because the dirt is not attached in the same way.
Rav Pe’alim says it is permitted to wash fruit and vegetables to remove insecticide from their surface, in order to eat them immediately. If dirt or dust is stuck to the fruit, one may run water over it and rub it with the hand to eat it immediately.
Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked about the Mishnah Berurah’s ruling that potatoes are also included. He said that although people may not usually wash fruit this way, the truth is that since washing fruit to remove waste is the way of eating, it is permitted when done to eat immediately. People often wash fruit simply to improve it, and most people can eat it without washing. That is unlike potatoes, which are so covered with dirt that most people cannot eat them without washing. One should be stringent if one will not eat them immediately.
There may also be a distinction between putting them in a vessel of water and holding them in one’s hand under running water. The Mishnah Berurah may be stringent only about putting the potato in water; washing it under the faucet is different and is not the usual way of sorting. That is the custom.
The Shevet HaLevi was asked whether one may wash grapes on Shabbat. If it is just for cleanliness and there is no actual waste on them, he permits it. If there is actual waste that prevents eating, and that is common, he says it is like soaking potatoes. It sounds as though he prohibits it even if one intends to eat immediately. In my humble opinion, the main later authorities permit it. Be’er Moshe also permits washing fruit, even if the insects are not very visible.
The Mishnah Berurah’s ruling about potatoes leads to all these distinctions. Chacham Yitzchak had a whole discussion about it. What are you talking about—who eats a raw potato? We’ll see that. He mostly wants to permit washing it under the faucet.
With God’s help, tomorrow we have to discuss these salt shakers that have rice in them. Are you taking the good from the bad? It depends how you look at it. It could be Borer with a keli; it has holes. We also have to see perforated spoons. We’ve done these things already, but we’ll see them again. Do whatever you want; the whole process is fine. Don’t soak it. That’s it.
“Aval be’emtza chelek gadol shel Bayit Sheni mamash, az mah shehayah tzarich zman kedei lehasbir Torah ve’adif yatzat.” Chazak uvaruch.
Yitgadal veyitkadash shemeh raba (May His great name be exalted and sanctified). Amen. Be’alma di vera chir’uteh veyamlich malchuteh veyatzmach purkaneh vikarev meshicheh (In the world He created according to His will; may He establish His kingdom, bring forth His salvation, and bring near His Messiah). Amen. Bechayeichon uv’yomeichon uvchayei dechol Beit Yisrael ba’agala uvizman kariv ve’imru amen. Amen. Yehe shemeh raba mevarach le’alam ul’almei almaya (May His great name be blessed forever and for all eternity). Yehe shemeh raba mevarach le’alam ul’almei almaya. Yitbarach veyishtabach veyitpa’ar veyitromam veyitnase veyithadar veyit’aleh veyithalal shemeh dekudsha berich hu (May the name of the Holy One, blessed is He, be blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, elevated, honored, uplifted, and lauded). Amen. Le’ela min kol birchata shirata tushbechata venechemata da’amiran be’alma ve’imru amen (Above all blessings, songs, praises, and consolations spoken in the world; and say amen). Amen. Al Yisrael ve’al rabanan ve’al talmideihon ve’al kol talmidei talmideihon de’askin be’orayta kadishta, di ve’atra hadein vedi bechol atar ve’atar, yehe lana ulehon ulechon china vechisda verachamei min kodam marei shemaya ve’ar’a ve’imru amen (Upon Israel, the rabbis, their students, and all their students’ students who study the holy Torah, here and everywhere, may we and they find favor, kindness, and mercy before the Master of heaven and earth; and say amen). Amen.