יש חנות שעומדת תחת כשרות מהודרת שמאפשרת ללקוחות לבקש מבעלי המסעדה להכין להם טוסטים עם דגים וגבינה בו זמנית ובזה אחר זה, כך שנוצר מצב שהטוסטר מלא בשיירי גבינה שאסורה באכילה לדעת השו"ע, ונשאלת השאלה על מה סמכו ההכשר לתת ...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

יש חנות שעומדת תחת כשרות מהודרת שמאפשרת ללקוחות לבקש מבעלי המסעדה להכין להם טוסטים עם דגים וגבינה בו זמנית ובזה אחר זה, כך שנוצר מצב שהטוסטר מלא בשיירי גבינה שאסורה באכילה לדעת השו"ע, ונשאלת השאלה על מה סמכו ההכשר לתת הכשר לזה לנוהגים עפ"ד השו"ע.

וראיתי בחנות הזו אדם מבני ספרד שהיה נראה אדם של צורה שקונה דבר מאכל המוכן במכשיר הנ"ל, ושאלתי אותו אם מקפיד על איסור דגים בחלב כדעת השו"ע, והשיב שכן, ושאלתי אותו מה עושה עם הבעיה הנזכרת, ואמר לי שהוא לא פוסק ואינו יודע.

והנה לגבי תערובת בעין של דגים בבשר לדידן בני אשכנז הסכמת רוב הפוסקים שהוא אסור עכ"פ כשאין ס', וגם כשיש ס' יש שהחמירו כמו שהרחבתי בתשובה אחרת, ומסתמא שכך הוא לדעת השו"ע בתערובת דגים בחלב, ונשאלת השאלה אם נניח שאין ממשות דג רק טעם דג האם אסור או לא.

והנה כשנשווה לדברי הגמ' בפסחים עו ע"ב על כוורא בכותחא עי"ש דמשמע שגם בדיעבד היה אסור בזמן הגמ', נמצא שגם טעם אסור, אבל באופן הנזכר בגמ' שם של ריחא הוא חומרא דגם לדידן אי' ברמ"א יו"ד סי' קטז ס"ב דבדיעבד אינו אסור ועי"ש בש"ך סק"א שאינו מוסכם אבל כן דעת הרבה אחרונים (ובביאור פסק זה עי' במטה יהונתן שהאריך בזה ואפשר דלעיקר הדין נקט הרמ"א דלדידן נשתנו הטבעים ואין סכנה ולכן לא החמיר אלא לכתחילה, עי' גם ברמ"א או"ח סי' קעג ויו"ד שם ס"ג, ובביאור הגר"א על הרמ"א שם ס"ב משמע שביאר דינו להתיר בדיעבד מדין שאר איסורין דאף שבגמ' איכא מאן דאסר לה היינו משום דסבר ריחא מילתא בכל איסורין אבל לדידן שאין איסור ריחא בשאר איסורין אין איסור ריחא גם בזה, כך יתכן לבאר כוונתו), אבל בניד"ד שהגבינה התבשלה ממש עם דג ונשאר ממשות מהגבינה שהוא חמור מנ"ט בר נ"ט עי' בריש סי' צה א"כ לכאורה הי' לאסור, ובאמת כן מבואר בש"ך על הרמ"א בסי קטז שם דגם אם מכשירין דגים ובשר שנצלו זה אצל זה אבל אם נצלו נוגעין זה בזה אסורין, והביא כן בשם מהרש"ל באיסור והיתר שלו וביש"ש חולין פ"ז סי' לט וכן מדרכי משה בשם איסור והיתר הארוך כלל לט וכן מבואר שם בט"ז סק"א.

אולם בט"ז סי' צה סק"ג מה שהוכיח מהגמ' ושו"ע שטעם בשר בדגים אינו אוסר את הדגים (ובט"ז גופא הובאו כמה צדדים אבל כך העתיק הבאר היטב מסקנת הט"ז), אולם שם לא מיירי לענין דגים ובשר שנתבשלו ממש אלא לענין דגים שנתבשלו בקדירה בן יומה של בשר, ועי' גם בחת"ס על הש"ך ריש סי' קטז מה שהביא מהארוך להקל בבן יומו, אבל כל הנידון שם בארוך ובט"ז ובמהרש"ל שהובא שם ובחת"ס הכל רק מצד פליטת כלים אבל איסור בעין ליכא למאן דמתיר.

ויעוי' בכה"ח או"ח סי' קעג סק"ח בשם הפ"ת לענין נגיעה שאין חוששין שנדבק מן הבשר, אבל באופן שנשאר בעין מן האיסור, דהיינו מהחלב שנתבשל עם הדגים בזה לא מיירי הפ"ת, וכמבואר ריש סי' צה ביו"ד דבאופן שנשאר ממשות האיסור ואין ס' כנגדו לא אמרי' סברא זו לענין בשר בחלב.

ואולי באמת הטעם שלא נהגו להקל בזה משום דמצרפינן כאן הספק שמא יש ס' במאכל החדש שבמכשיר כנגד הגבינה שנשארה ונדבקה במאכל הזה החדש, ובצירוף דעת הרמ"א ואחרונים להתיר דג בחלב וכן דעת המג"א באו"ח סי' קעג (הובא גם במשנ"ב שם) שנוטה להתיר האידנא אפי' דג בבשר, ואולי מצרפים גם שיש אחרונים שנקטו שהוא ט"ס בב"י וממילא לא נקטו כהב"י בזה מטעם שגרסו אחרת בדבריו (עי' סי' פז ביו"ד בד"מ אות ד ט"ז סק"ג וש"ך סק"ה וחידושי הגהות שם בטור אות ד), ואולי סוברים דכיון דלהשו"ע ל"א חנ"נ בשאר איסורים וכ"ש בסכנתא שאינו מטעם איסור כלל, א"כ טעם הדגים שמתחילה בטל בס' בטעם המאכל שבישל לאחר מכן, ולא אמרי' שהגבינה שנשארה במכשיר היא חנ"נ.

וכ"ז כתבתי רק כדי ללמד זכות על ההכשרים שלא עוררו על הענין, ואולי יש גם קצת לימוד זכות אם נימא דהאידנא יש מבני ספרד שהושפעו ממנהגי בני אשכנז כידוע, וממילא קצת קיל ענין מקום שנהגו האידנא, אפשר שיש מקום קצת להקל בזה, לומר שאם רוצה לסמוך להקל בזה אין כאן שינוי מנהג המקום כ"כ, וכ"ז הוא קולא גדולה כי לא מצאתי בשום מקום דבר כזה שאדם ישנה מנהגו מחומרא לקולא מכח טענה זו, וצל"ע המציאות בזה אם באמת יש מבני ספרד שנוהגים כהרמ"א בזה בשעת הדחק, ויל"ע למעשה.

ואולי הדבר המועדף יותר הוא שרבני הקהילות הנוהגים כהשו"ע יגלו דעתם בפני ההשגחות הפועלות שיעמידו מכשיר נפרד להנוהגים כדעת השו"ע.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I entered a reputable store that, due to the savings in the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc.,...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

I went into a respectable store that, due to the savings on the cost of a kosher supervisor, they do not use a kosher supervisor and are content with the announcement that all products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and the dunam has a right, since the expenses of maintaining a store today are large, including the rent of the place and the advertisements and the expenses of raw materials and taxes and salaries, etc., etc. It is possible for a dunam to have a right that according to what they say they do everything legally and do not need an overseer at all.

But still since it was recently published about serious obstacles that happened in places where there is no kosher supervisor, therefore it would be better if there was public awareness of how to treat a store where all products are under the supervision of the Kosher.

It should be noted that sometimes it is indeed impossible to point out a prohibition that is clear on the part of Gadri Halacha to buy there, if the seller observes the Torah and mitzvot (and the Shu'a and Rama'a find that the main point of the law is relaxed even in matters more than that, cf. C. Kitt SB and SG and 37, and EE in the words of the Shu'a and Rama concerning the law of food that is written kosher, as well as the law of letters in Hebrew where no Gentiles know how to write), but in reality there are many obstacles in such places, especially today that the food industry is industrial and includes the use of many workers and supplies .

And so as long as you don't know the seller personally, he is God-fearing and knows Halacha and knows what he is doing, what can certainly be said is that it is better to buy in a supervised place.
(And we noted in the Rama that things that were held to be problematic do not rely on the holdings, and also in the Rama in Baha 3:17 72, and Yaoi' of the Rabbi Yona regarding the matter of the slaughters and brought the 22).

Below I will mention some of the obstacles that can be found in such a place:
A.
The discharge falls into the pulp
When you prepare a pulp, you often oblige yourself to secrete challah without knowing it, and besides that, for example, sometimes you secrete challah from a pulp because of doubt, and after that another doubt is created, such as when you join a basket between two pulps from which each of them was secreted separately when it was in a doubtful proportion, and now there is a certain proportion between the two, And from the judgment one has to set aside challah again, and it is possible to fail in this due to lack of knowledge.

B.
Unrolling and immersing the dishes
There is no Bedaz inspection on the dishes, even in stores that write that all the products are under the inspection of the Bedz, and not on the way in which they are immersed and disgusted, and as I mentioned in one of the adjacent answers, there is a halachic problem buying from a seller who does not adhere to legal immersion and immersion (even if he is not his son).

And of course there are sometimes also dishes that are destroyed to such an extent that they prohibit cooking in them, and those who deal with the kitchen and cooking without knowing the Halacha may fail.

third.
There are products that do not require kosher
There are products that are practiced that do not require kosher, such as sugar and coffee, and it is possible that you at home are also careful about these products to buy only kosher, but it is possible that the seller is not careful about this, that is, it is not impossible that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, this statement does not mean products that do not need kosher (in the opinion of the seller), as long as it is not stated otherwise (and maybe even if we ask the seller he will answer that "everyone does not follow this").

d.
Worm inspection
There are types of foods that claim to test for worms as explained in the Shoah in the Book of Worms, and even on behalf of kosher it says to test, and it is a problem to use products that have not been legally tested, even if the products are under the supervision of the Bedz.

God.
Fish inspection
On behalf of the BDS (up to the last time I was updated), fish sold with skin are required to be tested at home, to check that they have scales, so even if all the products are under the supervision of the BDS, it still does not mean that the seller has done the inspection legally.

Also, on behalf of the Bedz Rabbi Landa, the official instruction on the salmon fish is that the skin is problematic and requires care at home, so even if the seller bought all the products with good care, it is still impossible to know if he took care of the skin properly.

and.
Blood clotting in poultry
The problem of blood clotting in poultry is still not eliminated by kosher.
Although I don't know even when there is kosher on the restaurant if the supervisor oversees it.

And the same with regard to the condemnation of eggs that do not have kosher marks (kad and had) those who are careful about this at home and buy ready-made challah at the store, obviously the supervisor of the mafia is not careful about this, but in such a case where there are some doubts here it is easier (i.e. by way of answer) What brought in this, and there are also instructions from our time arbitrators in this).

G.
Akaum cooking
Even if all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, it still does not guarantee that there is no illegal cooking, and as we know, a person forgot that hot seed and Ishmael is cheaper, and in any case it is found in factories that use them as laborers, when significant manpower is needed, and of course in bakeries and restaurants they are observed working, and the big problem It's not the regular use of them, dela mashui inish nafshaya sharia, but the bigger problem is all kinds of voices that are not agreed that the seller can make it easier for himself (or make it easier for the attribution of the workers in the places that the arbitrators have taken that they don't have enough attribution) and when there is a kosher who oversees it, he is more responsible.

H.
Annihilated cooking
In this regard, not all of the koshers are careful not to let the mashomed cook, but in places where "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" there is certainly no guarantee that they are careful about this.

ninth.
Meat in milk
Even in places that promise that "all products are under the supervision of the Bedz" which can legally oblige them if they are found to be liars, but they do not promise not to cook meat products with milk, or meat products in milk vessels and vice versa (and that there is no promise that they do not cook fish with meat or fish with milk for those who are strict about it).

Likewise, there are also laws which products are allowed to be placed next to other products, and there are laws of cancellation and there is no cancellation, and the taste is not void, and all these things are not sufficient for those who are not knowledgeable in Halacha.

And likewise, sometimes there is a meat/dairy din for the food, and the seller will not necessarily indicate this because in his opinion the food is not considered meat, or he does not see the need to indicate this, and when there is no supervision I went to the store it is impossible to know about all of this.

J.
A touch of wine
Even in places where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there can be a person who does not observe Shabbat who touches the wine, and there are ways that the wine is prohibited even when it is mixed in a stew as explained in the Shoah, and in the case of the Shabbos if he touched the wine before entering the stew, and a Shabbat person who touches the wine is very problematic.

11
seventh
Even in a store where all the products are under the supervision of the Bedz, there is still no guarantee that they do not sell products that have the sanctity of the Sabbath, and that those who are strict about certain things such as foreign crops or northern and southern prairies or cultivated on the seventh (and harvested on the eighth) should not expect to have information about this, burden In most cases, in kosher, things are monitored and the necessary information is provided to the buyer of the product.

12.
negligence at work
Even if the seller's intention is pure that all the products will be under the supervision of the Bedz, if he brings in chefs (cooks) who are not irash and gives them the products to prepare ready-made dishes from it, if there is no supervision and supervision as usual, there is still no guarantee that they will not introduce other substances, and they touch the matter It turns out tastier so that they will continue to use their service, and even if according to Halacha it is sometimes allowed because he is a craftsman or because he is in the House of Israel, and there are many differences of opinion about this (Vai'oi' in S. Kich s. ), mm It is certainly better to buy from a place where there is supervision, since it is known that there are obstacles in this (as the aforementioned RMA said).

13.
Sending meat and the like without a seal
There are foods that must not be sent with goy or moshmood without a seal or two seals such as meat, eg in S. Kih, and there are ways that it is prohibited even in retrospect, and it is possible to fail in this even if all the principle products come from the supervision of the Bedz.

Hand.
Suspect to eat normal kosher
Even if the seller is obvious to the eye as a person who observes the Torah and mitzvot, mm if he also eats things that are rabbinically kosher known as regular kosher, or other koshers that according to Din AA can be trusted, and when he arrives at the place and is served dishes with these koshers, he eats them, And these koshers are held as kosher by him without fear, in any case his presumption of kosher must be discussed with the Didan, i.e. even if he says that all the products are under the supervision of the Badz, since in his opinion everything is considered kosher Galat, in any case it is not so simple that he has a presumption of kosher on it (I.C. Kih Sof Sach and I' further C. Kit Sach, and IA in the words of the Shu'a regarding the fact that there is no loyalty in the rapists about their wine since they themselves are not careful, and it should be discussed whether it is appropriate to learn from this), in particular if it is a restaurant that naturally It involves many challenges and requires all kinds of materials that can sometimes be easily obtained from all kinds of places, and there are many permit instructions that a person can order for himself when he knows that without this permit order he will not be able to bring food tomorrow to his regular and non-regular customers, and everything that is needed is not always readily available in good kosher.

Tu.

Relying on the loyalty of women and minors in Halacha
It is necessary to add a dish of problems in the trust of a woman and a minor in certain cases as explained in the Shoah and the Rama'a SS C. 133 SG and SD and it is necessary to note that all this is strictly adhered to.
By the way, I quoted the Rama's words, where it should be noted a model of loyalty of people who do not follow the grammar of the Halacha. As for the grammar of the Halacha, it is discussed on its own and Ish.

16
Unseasoned chicken or meat
Even if you buy poultry and meat under the supervision of the Badz, but if you buy them from the Badz when they have not yet been salted and roasted and the seller prepares them himself (which can be profitable for those who buy in quantities), there can be problems with salting that prohibit the meat even in retrospect, such as if stock drips on the meat in ways Some, either blood dripped from the outside during roasting, or it stayed for a few days without salting, and there are many legal details in this.

17.
Leaven on which Passover passed
It is possible that a product is perfectly kosher in the Badatz kosher, but after Pesach it will be forbidden in pleasure, if they did not sell chametz, and the seller did not commit except that the products are under the supervision of the Badatz, and if he is not a Yarash (and you do not know him) lest he think that A. to come at him with claims, also if you are careful not to trust all the sales that are practiced due to various concerns, and even if the seller is an expert, how can you trust him as long as you don't know that he is meticulous, (and this also does not state the law of oxygen of transgressors, etc., since this is a complete permit for him), although for this reason one can withdraw from the hodai, and if it is a dish that only provides a mixture of chametz, it must be sold to a Gentile, it is very easy, as there are three sides to this, to allow it, and there is only doubt as to whether it is chametz that is not sold at all (without additional sides of a mixture and of that sold to a gentile in a Didan sale) there is a side in the rulings that it is permissible, although it should be noted that there are also those who are careful in the case of a chametz mixture that is sold as above.

Summary of things
Some of the things from the legal point of view are not required to be worried about, but since in the reality of a store there is no supervisor there and you don't know the seller and the employees if they are God-fearing and punctual and knowledgeable in the Halacha, it is very possible that mistakes can be made, and therefore it is certainly possible to say that it is recommended in terms of kosher to buy at the more elegant place.

It should be noted that without a doubt there are restaurants of kosher and Jewish Jewish people who are more strict about lightening than other shops with kosher supervision, but I did not come here in this article but to offer a suggestion of things and concerns that may exist in some shops of this type.

All of the above does not exempt the person who prepares food alone at home from finding out all the laws concerning it, because just as in a restaurant one can fail in all these obstacles, so does the person who prepares food at home.

And we will end with the words of the Shoah (regarding Gentile artisan apothecaries' tools if there is a fear of them breaking the prohibition) and the soul will feel that these words lead to purity and cleanliness.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The people of Ashkenazi bless the prayer of the road on a horse's way, and the people of Sephard also bless the reward, and the lesson of the horse's horse is the opinion of the Mishnab and some rulings that it is according to the distance and not according to the time of travel, and the rulings of our times were divided regarding the travel of our times in terms of several matters, and those who practice according to the Hazo'a will say.. .!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

The people of Ashkenaz bless the prayer of the way on a horse's way, and the people of Sephard also bless the reward, and the lesson of the horse of the horse is the opinion of the Mishnab and some rulings that it is according to the distance and not according to the time of travel, and the rulings of our time are divided in the matter of travel of our times in terms of several matters, and those who practice according to the Haza'a will say the prayer of the way , and so they will say the reward for the Spaniards, and for further elaboration see the sources.

Sources: In the prayer of the road, the required rate of travel is a horse (Och Ki), and in the blessing of the Gomel, the Ashkenazi people did not use to bar a trip unless it was a trip that was dangerous, and the people of Sephard used to bless every trip because all roads are fraught with danger (Sho'a Rit 7, and also the opinion of some of the first in Tobiah there to bless ACP in the way of a horseshoe like the people of Spain and some even made it worse with less horseshoes).

Regarding travel in our time, there are several questions, 1) Is the persa rate the distance of a persa, which is a distance of 8,000 cubits, or is it necessary to travel at the time rate of a persa walk, i.e. a 72 minute trip.

2) In our time, most journeys do not involve an uninhabited area within a distance of a horse, and the question arises as to what is the law on such journeys.

3) In our time, most trips even outside the city are several hundred passengers at the same time on the same route and road, and there is no danger like in the old days of thieves and bad animals on a normal road, but on the other hand there is a danger of traffic accidents, and the question arises whether it is appropriate to bless because of the danger of traffic accidents.

Regarding the first condemned in the 2012 Ki Skal regarding traveling by train, the meaning is according to the distance and not according to the travel time, and so on. "B" and also brought the letter "MA" in the "RiT" sign.

However, Yaoi' in the OLC [Heb Pid Mev] that he brought 27, and brought evidence from other rulings on the matter of road in the law of Abilot that are estimated according to time, and concluded that the rate of travel is according to an hour and five, and perhaps he decided so because of the SBL, etc. P. Shantak there also [HA 166] Yes to Kola Efi' for the matter of a road before prayer, and perhaps there is a place to say that only with regard to danger the SBL was required since there is a belief that the distance from the city is the cause of the danger, as for the matter of prayer which is the exertion of the body It is more obvious to him that it is according to time and not distance, but in his words in the halakhots of prayer he indicated in his words in the halakhots of the prayer of the way that he relied on this, and it seems that the division that he mentioned there in the Samb was more likely to say that they estimate according to time, as he brought in the name of the rabbi verbs that Kilis Shirif is this Ish.

Regarding the discussion of 2 Yaoi' in the explanation of the halacha [C. Ki 45 and there is no] that he was satisfied with this for the matter of the prayer on the road, and in fact the Geriz did not bless, the Gershza did order, but the Gerzhza blessed because today there is a danger of traffic accidents, and they also brought in his name The Garhak and the Garnak [cit. in the comments and additions there], and in the Or Lezion Council [Hab Yad Mev] it seems that he considered to bless, although in the matter of traffic accidents he did not take that because of this he should be blessed since there was no regulation for that, but instead he took That the main thing in the opinion of the Shu'a regarding the question of the interpretation is that the halacha must be blessed.

In the 20th century (Rit 22) it is explained that the fence of the reward blessing for the people of Spain is your way that obligates the prayer of the way, (and it must be proven from the first ones that were brought in the Bible that the Jerusalemites brought all the ways in possession of danger, and this was brought in the Bible in the matter of the prayer of the way, and it is also proven To get rid of the language of the Aboderahm in the B.C. Rit Shalam Din is to depress the reward of the way prayer), therefore in places where there is the way prayer for the Ashkenazi people, there will also have to be the blessing of the reward for the people of Sephard.

And in the ways that one should add another kola, there is more room to make the blessing of the return than the prayer of the road, even though the blessing of the return is not agreed upon to bless, and there is more room to say Sabal when it is possible to add another side to the exemption, and also that the prayer of the road there are opinions that one can bless permission since it ends with ba. I hear a prayer [P.N. Baruchot according to the Toss there and also added by the Gerish regarding inter-internet travel of our times (I heard from other preachers Rabbi Shimon Cohen ztzel that this was the conclusion of the Gerish), although there are some rulings not to complete a signature on the The poor man, even though the signature there is also in Ai Shume tefilah, due to the specific reason this is not to be trusted].

In Or Lezion [HB Pid Mb] he wrote about the blessing of the reward that the road of our times that sees more cars together is not the road that is in danger, and there was reason to say that regarding the blessing of the reward it was easier and so on, but from the rest of his words it seems that the matter of the prayer of the road and the blessing of the reward Zalz.

Regarding a road that is dangerous in our time and Afi' in less than a horseshoe and Afi' to the Ashkenazi people blesses between the blessing of the road and the reward (see regarding the reward from the 20th century ki skal and Ishi Yisrael PG note 24 in the name of the Garshaza and Or Lezion 11 of Mb ).

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is certainly worth checking because it is found that sometimes a bag of milk is torn in the store and the rest of the sealed milk is not clean, and everything that can be found out is easily checked and found out, but if it is no longer in front of us, and we want to mix the food that touches the milk box with meat, in a way that does not belong...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

It is certainly worth checking because it is found that sometimes a bag of milk is torn in the store and the rest of the sealed milk is not clean, and everything that can be easily found out is checked and clarified, but if it is not already in front of us, and we want to mix the food related to the milk carton with meat, in a way that does not involve washing it, such as in the matter Moisture or powder, etc., apparently does not strengthen the prohibition and there is no obligation to fear that something was done that was not supposed to be done and created, and in general it is clean, ACP in milk in a box, and in the S.C. and in the Hagra and PMG ISA Is it just Washed dishes or not, and the opinion of the majority of the puskims that they do not worry in retrospect, and yet for our purposes that they do not know if it got dirty, and it is true that the puskims discussed cups and salt to initially separate meat from milk, but from Kofia I did not find a clear reference to this discussion in the puskims, and in fact he would make a smart question.
However, in the event that the milk was touched from the outside only by a matter of fur and the sentence for eating it after meat should not be made worse, A. Sh. Pet. 19, and also since we discussed there the well is well and the house is bright in the words of the S. Here there is nothing that is condemned here but only touching the Alma, and if there is concern that there is no S. to cancel the touching of the milk to the house of Meir there it is legally condemned as a stew of milk, and as in the Shoah Tsa 1, and in this it is more severe than the NT Bar NT of Cooking in a congealed pot or cooking in a pot that has an S against the first gender in cooking, both in Shu'a and in Harma.
And it is also possible to allow this in the case of the Hari Rama who is strict in the Torah of sin for just vessels that are not in the possession of clean ones as brought by the PMG Rish Tzah and the Hari Rama Gofia in the Okh in the Pesach Tamaz 4 although he initially made it strict with the vessel that was not tested, but in retrospect by intervening from Kil Shem, Aka Kash to other judges who clean just dishes, and afi' to the strict ones who just clean dishes, MM in retrospect, clean and Kash in such a new dish that it is doubtful whether we will get dirty as if we doubt on doubt not on the P.K. In the Shoah 14 Pesach Thess 4, and also for the last ones who got worse in S. Tamez there they did not shine with new tools.
And also YLA if they are miru only on Pesach, the prohibition of something defining a knife that is not clean is something like Mash in the Mishnav where Skapah is and there is a phlogta in it in the 2nd of the Yod.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In retrospect, the dough is allowed since it was hermetically sealed, but the microwave needs training by heating with water as explained in the books of the judges. Sources: A. Yod Kah, A and AGM Yod M. Net, Drachi Tshuva and K.H. in Shoa there, and see in detail in Sefer Kashruth p. Med and p...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

In retrospect, the dough is allowed since it was hermetically sealed, but the microwave needs training by heating with water as explained in the books of the judges.

Sources: I. Yod Kah, 1 and AGM Yod M. Net, Drakhi Tshuva and K. H. in Shoa there, and see in detail in Sefer Keshrut p. Md and p. Mh.
And if the food was not closed and the vessel was not a day old, the food was not forbidden, and if the food was not closed and the vessel was a day old, he would make a wise question.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

permitted. And regarding appearances, see in the sources. Sources: Mishna Chulin Kig, A and Tor and Shelhan Aruch Yod Paz and also the Lahvah that there is a Hanan in this for Israel, but it is permissible according to the laws of prohibition of meat to be cooked in the milk of Darbanan Dahvah interprets the words of the Tor. And regarding the appearance of the Rama below...!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9739!trpenRead more!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen

permitted.
And regarding appearances, see in the sources.

Sources: Mishna Chulin Kig, A and Tor and Shelhan Aruch Yod Paz and also the Lahvah that there is a Hanan in this for Israel, but it is permissible according to the laws of prohibition of meat to be cooked in the milk of Darbanan Dahvah interprets the words of the Tor.

And with regard to the appearance of the rama later on the sign is stricter, and it is true that the Shachak went out to renew the division between the appearance of eating, in which one must be careful, and the appearance of cooking, in which the OT must be careful, but the latter as the Gre'a and the rest of the noach there seem not to have been accepted The Shach's innovation and they agreed with the Rama'a that it appears that he practices both cooking and the 16th that doubted the Rama's MM Ladina did not deviate from the Rama's ruling, and also the Shachak Gofia said his words were in the Rashba's opinion according to what he understood from my words The Rashba, and the Gera's comment on the Shu'a there explains that in another answer to the Rashba it is explained not as the Shachak understood in his words, and in particular that the simplicity that the appearance of the eye belongs to everything that has the appearance of the eye, as we found that it was ruled because of the appearance of the eye in many places, And I'm in the middle of Shabbos in Sogi' Dashotchan in Hama.

In fact, one must be careful in appearance when cooking, and when cooking such a thing, it should be obvious that one is cooking impure meat, and if it is evident from the meat that it is meat, something else is wrong with that.

!trpsttrp-gettext data-trpgettextoriginal=9740!trpenRead less!trpst/trp-gettext!trpen