The כ"מ
in טומאת מת explains that the Rambam
holds that the reason why cooking is assur is because it is part of the
process of eating; one must cook in order to eat. Based upon this both Rav Moshe Solevetchik (Penini
Harav pg. 195) and the Dovev Measharim (siman 31) want to say
that if one is cooking in a manner where it is not to create an edible food
that there is no issur of בישול בו"ח. The Dovev Measharim challenges this
assumption from a Gemorah Chullin (113b) if one cooks milk in fat there is a
punishment of lashes for cooking, but not for eating because of the principle
of אין איסור חל
על איסור. We see here that the issur
of cooking exists even without an issur of eating? However, we can defend the Rambam that even with
the principle of אאחע"א,
there still is some form of minute issur (whatever language you want to
express this idea.) In practice however,
the Dovev Measharim and Minchas Asher (#43) don’t allow cooking even
if it won’t lead to eating because לא דרשינן טעמא דקרא.
The Rambam in theמשנה תורה is discussing
a different issue than in ספר
המצות. In ספר המצות the Rambam is
counting the mitzvot, he is explaining why all the prohibitions of basar
b’chalav are counted as one prohibition, so he explains all of the
prohibitions are learnt out from one verse.
However, this leads to a problem for the Rambam himself rules his second
shoresh that one doesn’t get lashes for prohibitions learnt from principles
of derush. Asks the Ramban, if so,
how can there be lashes for eating basar b’chalav? Therefore, the Rambam in משנה תורה explains
that the issur of eating is a ק"ו from
cooking. The intent of the Rambam is
that the issur of eating is part of the issur of cooking (the issur
of cooking is aגילוי
מילתא שלוקין על אכילה ולכן ל"ק מאין עונשין מן הדין ואכ"מ להאריך .)
The Rambam in Morah says the reason for the issur of
cooking milk and meat is because that was done for avodah zarah. It that is the reason I don’t understand the ק"ו of the Rambam from cooking to eating; maybe
only cooking was done for the avodah zarah?
see פתחי תשובה יו"ד סי' ק"ב who quotes a teshuva from r' akiva eiger who discusses אין איסור חל על איסור רק לענין עונשין אבל איסור מיהא איכא. I think that we can defend the rambam differently. Even if the reason for issur bishul is eating לא פלוג דאורייתא.
ReplyDeleteyour question about the קל וחומר and the טעמא דקרא is really relevant to most קל וחומר. It would seem the קל וחומר ignores טעמא דקרא and works with independent סברא בלבד. However, see ריש בבא מציעא דף ג./ג:/ד. בענין עדים במקצת