THE LAWS OF SHABBAT
By Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon
Shiur #01: BORER (Part 1)
Translated
by Rav Yoseif Bloch
I) The Definition of Borer
What is the nature of the prohibition of borer (selecting)? What is the unique difficulty in
explicating it? Is it permitted to
pick out just some of the refuse?
ZOREH,
BORER AND
MERAKKED
As we attempt to delve into each of the thirty-nine types of labor
(melakhot) which are forbidden on Shabbat, we must first understand how
they relate to each other. This is
especially true in the case of the melakha of borer, which is strikingly similar to
two other prohibitions, zoreh
(winnowing) and merakked
(sifting). Why are all three
necessary, and how do they relate to dash (threshing) and tochen
(grinding) in the flour-making process?
We must note that each wheat kernel is covered by a dry husk and
supported by a stalk. Before
grinding the kernels into flour, the unwanted material, or chaff, must be
removed, and the kernels must be cleansed of all dirt. This is done in a number of
stages.
FIRST STAGE (DASH-THRESHING): removing the chaff from the
kernel. In order to do this,
pressure must be applied to the kernels of grain, so that the husk is broken and
the wheat kernel is exposed. This
act is called threshing, and it is performed by striking the wheat with a stick
or using a threshing instrument. In
biblical times, this act was accomplished through a threshing-sledge
(Yeshayahu 41:15), a wooden implement, with blades on its bottom, which
would be dragged on top of the harvested wheat.
SECOND STAGE (ZOREH-WINNOWING): separating the husk and the stalks
from the grain. In the previous
step, each wheat kernel was removed from its husk, but the kernels, stalks and
husks are still mixed together, and they must be separated. One therefore takes a winnowing fan,
into which the kernels, stalks and husks are placed and then thrown in the
air. The light husks and stalks
blow away in the wind, while the heavy kernels fall back into the winnowing
fan.
THIRD STAGE (BORER-SELECTING): removing dirt and pebbles. The kernels of grain are now separated
from the chaff; however, in the meantime, the kernels have become mixed with
clumps of earth and pebbles. Now is
the time to pick out the refuse from the kernels.
FOURTH STAGE (TOCHEN-GRINDING): breaking down the kernels into
flour. Now that the kernels are
clean, they can be ground.
FIFTH STAGE (MERAKKED-SIFTING): separating the bran. When the wheat kernels are ground, a
mixture of fine flour and coarse flour (bran) is produced. Now, they must be separated. This is done by sifting the flour with a
sieve: while the fine flour falls through the sieve’s holes, the coarse flour
remains in it.
We can determine that zoreh, borer and merakked are similar
melakhot. The aim of each of these is to separate
the pesolet (refuse) from the okhel (food), but each one uses a
different means to that end: while zoreh utilizes the wind, borer is done by hand and merakked is accomplished through a
utensil. (See Rabbeinu Chananel,
Shabbat 74a; also see Ran, 31b, Rif ibid., et al.) Indeed, the Talmud (73b) notes the
similarity between these melakhot:
Zoreh is borer is merakked!
The Talmud explains that, despite the similarity, these three actions are
counted as three separate melakhot
since every one of them was performed in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and every melakha which was performed in the Mishkan is counted on its own. Therefore, our analysis of the melakha of borer actually deals with the principles
tied to all three of these melakhot,
all of which bring us to the same end: separating the pesolet from the
okhel, the refuse from the food.
The Difficulty of the Melakha
of Borer
In the melakha of borer, the distinction between a
biblical prohibition and a totally permissible action is very fine. With a slight alteration, an act which
would have rendered one liable for violating Shabbat can become absolutely
acceptable. Therefore, this melakha requires intense study and
unique comprehension.
We should also note that the terms "pesolet" and "okhel"
are relative: pesolet is what one does not want in a mixture, while
okhel is what one does want, whether it is edible per se or
not.
THE BASIS OF THE MELAKHA OF BORER
At first glance, the very conception of the melakha of borer is questionable. We have a rule that a melakha she-einah tzerikha le-gufah is biblically permissible (though
rabbinically banned). A melakha she-einah tzerikha le-gufah is a melakha which one performs without any
interest in its essence, but for the sake of an incidental result. For example, in catching a venomous
snake in the interests of public safety, one is not compelled by the desire to
acquire an animal (the essence of trapping), but by a side effect of confining
it: preventing it from attacking people. (It is worth discussing at length the
issue of how we define the "essence" of a given melakha, but this is not the occasion to
do so.) It would appear that every
act of borer is a melakha she-einah tzerikha le-gufah, since it is
the pesolet upon which the melakha is performed — and no one wants
the pesolet which is being
removed!
Indeed, the Baal Ha-ma’or writes (37b,
Rif):
Every single one of the thirty-nine melakhot which parallel those performed
in the Mishkan had an essential need
within it, except for zoreh and borer.
According to this, borer is
indeed a melakha she-einah tzerikha le-gufah; however, it
(along with zoreh) is a unique
innovation of the Torah: despite its nature, one is liable for such an
act.
However, the words of the Ramban (106a) indicate that borer is considered a melakha ha-tzerikha
le-gufah. Why? In order to understand his approach, let
us take a look at the formulation of the author of the Yeshuot Ya’akov
(quoted in Bei’ur Halakha 319:3, s.v. Le’ekhol
miyyad):
The concept of the melakha of
borer is that the pesolet is inedible, and the okhel as well is not quite edible as
long as the pesolet is in its
midst... Consequently, the melakha is not picking out the pesolet, but rather fixing the okhel and rendering it edible, and this
is a melakha essential for the okhel
itself.
According to this, even though the melakha is executed by removing the pesolet, the essence of borer is fixing the okhel, and it turns out that it is an
"essential" melakha.
If so, we have two approaches to the basis of the melakha of borer.
1.
Borer is
removing the pesolet.
2.
Borer is
fixing the okhel.
This distinction has many ramifications, some of which we will enumerate
here.
Removing Some of the Pesolet
The Talmud Yerushalmi (7:2) says that one may spend the whole day
selecting without violating the prohibition of borer; inversely, one may select just a
tiny amount and thereby violate the prohibition of borer. How so? The Yerushalmi
explains:
Rabbi Yudan said: "One may pick out pebbles all day long and not be
liable; one may take a fig’s worth and be liable immediately. How is this done? If one sits on a heap and picks out
pebbles all day long — he is not liable.
If he takes a fig’s worth in his hand and picks out [the pebbles] — he is
liable."
In other words, if one initiates the process of borer on a giant heap but fails to
remove all of the pesolet from it, he is not liable. On the other hand, if he performs borer fully on even a small amount, he
is liable. From the words of the
Yerushalmi, we may conclude that the basis of the melakha of borer is fixing the okhel. Therefore, even if one performs borer all day long, if he does not
succeed in removing all of the pesolet from the okhel, the okhel has not been fixed, and therefore
he is not liable.
According to the Eglei Tal’s view (Zoreh, 1), the Bavli disagrees with the
Yerushalmi and renders one liable even if one does not remove all of the pesolet. It may indeed be that the Bavli holds
that borer is removing the pesolet, but the Bavli’s position may be
explained in other ways.
Removing the Pesolet along
with a Bit of Okhel
Another ramification of this distinction: according to the Taz (319:13),
if a fly falls into one’s drink, the fly may be removed along with some of the
liquid. The Mishna Berura (ibid,
61) codifies the words of the Taz and expands upon them. He determines that every time one picks
out pesolet along with a bit of okhel, one does not violate the
prohibition of borer. Indeed, it is widely accepted that we
rule leniently in accordance with the view of the Mishna Berura and that one is
allowed to remove pesolet with a bit
of okhel.
However, the Chazon Ish (Ch. 53, opening; Ch. 54:3) vigorously rejects
this approach. According to him,
one who removes, for example, a bone with a bit of meat on it violates the
prohibition of borer, since "he is
not thinking about the meat, but about picking the plate clean." (We will expand
on this argument below.)
It appears that the Mishna Berura and the Chazon Ish argue over the point
raised above. If we understand that
the basis of the melakha of borer is eliminating the pesolet, it may be that removing it with
a bit of okhel negates what has been
done to the pesolet, as there is no
segregation between okhel and pesolet. (This would be the understanding of the
Mishna Berura, who permits one to remove the pesolet with a bit of okhel.) However, if we understand that the basis
of the melakha of borer is fixing the okhel, we should forbid this even if one
takes a bit of okhel along with the
pesolet, since the ultimate result is
that one fixes the remaining okhel. (This would be the understanding of the
Chazon Ish, who forbids removing pesolet with a bit of okhel.)
There are many other ramifications of this distinction, and we will
return to them presently.
II) The Fundamental Rule of the Prohibition of
Borer
What practical solutions are there to separate between okhel and pesolet? Is it possible to eat in a normal way on
Shabbat?
The Gemara (74a) brings a beraita concerning the prohibition of borer and the act of bereira (selection):
The rabbis taught: If types of food lay before one, one may
select and eat, select and set aside [for others]; but one may not select, and
if one selects, one is liable [to bring] a
sin-offering.
In
the words of the beraita, there is a
clear contradiction: at first it says that it is permitted to perform borer; then, at the end, it says that
there is a biblical prohibition to do so and that one who does so must bring a
sin-offering. The Gemara is aware
of this contradiction and suggests a number of
solutions.
Rav
Yosef said: "'One may select and eat' by hand, 'select and set aside' by
hand... By sieve and sifter, 'one
may not select, and if one selects, one is liable [to bring] a
sin-offering.'"
Rav
Hamnuna said: "'One may select and eat' the food out of the refuse, 'select and
set aside' the food out of the refuse.
Refuse out of food, 'one may not select, and if one selects, one is
liable [to bring] a sin-offering.'"
Abbayei
said: "'One may select and eat' for immediate use, 'select and set aside' for
immediate use. But for [later] that
day, 'one may not select, and if one selects, one is liable [to bring] a
sin-offering.'"
According
to many Rishonim (Rabbeinu Chananel, Rambam, Ramban, et al.), the
Amora'im argue only about the best way to explicate the language of the beraita, but there is no halakhic
argument between them, as anyone who performs borer with a sieve or sifter (i.e., with
a sorting appliance) or by removing refuse from food (pesolet mi-tokh
okhel) or with the aim of eating later is liable. Selection is prohibited unless all three
conditions are met: a) selecting by hand and not with a sorting appliance, b)
taking okhel out of pesolet and c) selecting for the purpose
of eating immediately. The
Shulchan Arukh rules accordingly (319:1-4):
One
who picks food out of refuse... by
sieve and sifter is liable... If
one selects by hand in order to eat immediately, this is permissible... One who picks food out of refuse for
later, even on that very day, is considered to be selecting for the granary and
is liable... One who picks refuse
out of food, even with one hand, is liable.
WHY
IS IT PERMITTED?
Why
do these three conditions suffice to permit borer? The simplest understanding is that we
are talking about a certain alteration (shinnui) from the normal
selection process (derekh bereira).
However, this appears quite difficult, because generally doing something
with an alteration downgrades a Torah prohibition to a rabbinic one, but it does
not make it permissible ab initio.
Why is it totally permitted to perform borer under these conditions? We have found two approaches to this
question among the Rishonim:
A
Deviation from Normal Selection
Rashi
(ibid.) explains that selection under these circumstances is not considered an
act of bereira.
Selecting
by hand bears no similarity to borer...
"The
food out of the refuse" — this is not the way of
selection.
"'Select
and set aside' for immediate use" — to eat immediately, as this is not the way
of those who select.
That
is to say, since there is a total deviation, the act is totally
permissible. It may be that the
combination of all three of these things (by hand, okhel from pesolet, for immediate use) makes the
alteration so remarkable that the act becomes permissible ab
initio.
Tosafot
also follow this approach (s.v. Borer
Ve-okhel), writing:
"'One
may select and eat' the food out of the refuse" — it sounds as if picking food
out of refuse is not the way of selection.
This is difficult, since at the beginning of Chapter 20 (138a), we say
"What is the way to select? One
selects the food from the refuse."
One may suggest that in that case, there is more refuse than food, so
that selecting the food from the refuse is the way of selection (derekh
bereira).
In
any case, Tosafot maintain that the permissibility of the act is based on its
being "not the way of selection," and in light of this they propose a novel
idea: that if one has a mixture in which the majority is pesolet, one is allowed to remove the pesolet in particular, since "the way of
selection" in this case would be to removed the okhel (and thus if one
would in fact remove the food, one would be liable).
The
Manner of Eating
The
Ramban (ibid., s.v. Ve-hatanya chayav) and other Rishonim dispute
Tosafot's innovation (indeed, the halakhic authorities reject
it). The Ramban
writes:
This
is illogical, for when it comes to Shabbat, it is always forbidden to pick out
refuse and leave food, and even though both of them are the way of selection,
[the general principle is that] on Shabbat we involve ourselves only with
[removing] that which is permitted and not with that which is forbidden. One who involves himself with [removing]
the forbidden part is considered like one who selects for the granary, for his
intention is not to eat what one has selected, and thus, he is liable if he does
so.
According
to this view, selecting okhel from pesolet is considered derekh bereira just as much as selecting pesolet from okhel. The permissibility to select okhel from pesolet (when one does so manually and
for immediate use) does not stem from the fact that such an act is not derekh bereira, but from the fact that one who
does so is involving himself with permitted material and preparing a meal. Therefore, it makes no difference if the
okhel or the pesolet is quantitatively greater — in
any case, one must select the food one wants to eat and not involve oneself with
the pesolet.
From
the words of the Ramban it emerges that the three conditions required to permit
bereira are not based on the concept
of shinnui, that the act is no longer
consistent with derekh bereira, rather they are based on a
positive principle. Namely, bereira under these conditions falls
under a new category: derekh akhila, the way one eats. When one picks out food by hand and
immediately eats it, this is considered a natural part of the process of eating,
and it is not included in the prohibition of borer.
This
principle, that the permissibility of selection is based on its being
categorized as derekh akhila, also appears in the words of
Rabbeinu Chananel (74b):
What
is the reason? The Torah forbids
“thoughtful labor,” and this is not “thoughtful labor,” because one has no
intention in this melakha beyond the simple act of
eating.
This
is also implied in the Chiddushim Ha-meyuchasim La-Ran (74a, s.v.
U-l’vo va-yom):
One
might challenge Abbayei: since one who selects for later that day is liable, how
is it permitted to do so for immediate use — is not cooking forbidden even for
immediate use? But this is
untenable; since it is only a temporary state, [this act of bereira] is
no more than a part of the eating process...
These
principles are very important for our understanding of "immediate use." There are two schools of thought
regarding this issue. One approach
(that of Rashi and Tosafot) searches for permissibility based on the standard
halakhic principle of shinnui — a
minor shinnui changes a biblical
prohibition to a rabbinic one, while a great shinnui renders it totally
permissible. The other view, that
of the Ramban and his camp, posits that the Torah allows a person to eat and to
prepare to eat in a normal way, and therefore when one is involved in eating and
preparing to eat — there is no prohibition at all. Of course, even according to this
approach, only acts which are directly related to eating itself are permissible,
not other elements, such as cooking and the
like.)
This
argument has practical ramifications for the status of borer for immediate use. In later shiurim, we will deal with the
definitions of "immediate use" and "by hand." Before this, we must clarify some
important principles in the melakha
of borer.
III) Two Types of Food
Is
it permissible to take out slices of tomato from one's salad? Is it permissible to take raisins out of
rice if one does not like them? Is
it permissible to sort the silverware for the next meal? Is it permissible to arrange the pieces
on a chessboard after the game?
Is
borer prohibited only when there is
actual pesolet mixed in with the okhel, or is borer prohibited even with two types of
okhel?
The Gemara (74a) states:
The rabbis taught: If types of food lay before one, one may
select and eat, select and set aside [for others]; but one may not select, and
if one selects, one is liable [to bring] a
sin-offering.
The words of the Gemara indicate that even when one is faced with
two types of okhel, there is a
biblical prohibition to sort them.
However, Rashi (s.v. Hayu)
maintains that there is another version of this Talmudic text: "Our version is
'If types of food lay before one,' but our version is not 'two.'" According to him, the proper version of
the text is not "two types of food," but rather "types of food."
According
to this version, one may understand that the person is not separating between
one type of food and another type, but rather one is selecting the types of okhel from the pesolet which is mixed in with
them. It may be that Rashi rejects
the "two types of food" version because he maintains that there is no
prohibition to separate one type of food from another, but only to remove pesolet from okhel. Tosafot (s.v. Hayu lefanav) also imply that this is the
proper understanding according to Rashi’s version of the text.
However,
Tosafot themselves accept the version of "two types of
food":
Our
version is "if two types of food lay before one," and this is Rabbeinu
Chananel's explanation: that bereira
applies in selecting okhel from okhel, when one selects the type which
one does not want to eat from the type that one wants to eat, because the type
which one does not want is considered pesolet relative to the type which one
wants to eat.
According
to them, the prohibition of borer
applies even to the separation of one type of food from another type of
food. As we have seen, the essence
of the prohibition of borer is that
one is selecting pesolet out of okhel. If so, what is considered pesolet when there are two types of
food? Tosafot explain that the
desired type is defined as okhel,
while the currently undesired type is defined as pesolet.
In
the Yerushalmi (7:2), there is an explicit dispute on the issue of
selecting okhel from okhel: "If one selects food from food,
Chizkiya said: 'He is liable;' Rabbi Yochanan said: 'He is
exempt.'"
The
Root of the Argument
On
what does this dispute of the Rishonim — as well as the Acharonim
— turn? The Bei'ur Halakha
(319:3, s.v. Le'ekhol miyad) cites the words of the Yeshu’ot Ya'akov to
explain this:
The melakha is not
picking out the pesolet, but rather
fixing the okhel and rendering it
edible, and this is a melakha
essential for the okhel itself,
because one makes it into prepared food.
According to this, it is only picking pesolet out of okhel [which is forbidden], because
initially [the mixture] is totally inedible, and one makes it into food through
this bereira. However, in the case of two types of
food, wherein one separates the second type of food because one does not want to
eat it, it is considered a melakha
which is not essential le-gufah,
since this food that one wants to eat is currently edible, even while it is
mixed with the second type of food, and the separation is motivated solely by
the fact that [the second type of food] does not interest one at the
moment.
According to his view, following the understanding that the basis
of the melakha of borer is tikkun okhel, one who selects food from food
will be exempt because there is no tikkun okhel, as one is able to eat the mixture
without any bereira. According to this, it may be that that
Tosafot and their camp understand that the basis of the melakha of borer is hotza'at pesolet, and therefore bereira applies when one has two types
of food, since one removes the undesired food, considering this okhel to be pesolet, as Tosafot explain.
However, the Bei'ur Halakha himself (ibid.) questions this
suggestion of the Yeshu’ot Ya'akov, and he concludes that even if the
basis of the melakha is tikkun okhel, in any case there is good reason
to forbid bereira between two types
of food:
We are compelled to say that he maintains that even when there
are two types of food that are mixed together, each type is improved by its
being sorted, and therefore it is called melakha ha-tzerikha le-gufah.
In other words, sorting okhel from okhel is also a type of tikkun, since each type is made better
by being separated from the other.
It may well be that there is a practical difference between these
two approaches in the case of two types of food where one is stacked atop the
other, as to whether one may remove the top food in order to reach the bottom
food. The Bei'ur Halakha
(ibid.) permits such an act, consistent with his approach cited above, since the
two types are not mixed together, and as such the removal of the top layer does
not significantly improve the bottom layer (it merely allows one to reach the
food below). On the other hand, if
we understand that the basis of the melakha of borer is hotza'at pesolet, this
must be prohibited even though there is no tikkun of the lower level, since there
clearly is an act of removing an unwanted substance – which must be considered
pesolet in
context.
However, it may be that this act is unanimously permitted, since
items piled on top of each other are not considered a mixture at all. (We will deal with this at length in a
later shiur.)
Removing One Type of Food to Eat the Other
Immediately
In order to properly understand the status of separating two
types of food, we must examine the opinion of the Shulchan Arukh, who
rules (319:3): "If two types of food are mixed together before one, one may
select one from the other and set aside for immediate use." The Shulchan Arukh rules that
there is a prohibition of borer with
two types of food; however, there is one point which is unclear in his
words. As we have seen, when there
is a mixture of okhel and pesolet, it is permitted to remove
manually the okhel from the pesolet, but one may not take the pesolet from the okhel, even if one's intention is to eat
the okhel immediately.
However, when it comes to two types of food, the Shulchan Arukh
writes that one is allowed to "select one from the other" and to eat it
immediately, but he does not state explicitly if one is required to remove from
the mixture the wanted type specifically.
It should be noted that the Shulchan Arukh’s formulation here is a
quotation from the Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 8:13). Regarding the Rambam’s view, some
Acharonim (cited by the Bei'ur Halakha, 319:3, s.v.
U-meniach) understand that since there is no objective pesolet here, one may even remove the
undesired type in order to immediately eat the other
type.
However, the Rema adds two words to the Shulchan Arukh's
formulation: "One may select one from the other and set aside the other for
immediate use." The Magen
Avraham (ibid., 4) explains that the intention of the Rema is to stress that
one is permitted only to remove the desired type and to leave the other one; one
may not remove the type which one does not want to eat, since this type is
considered pesolet. It is quite possible that the
Shulchan Arukh also accepts this and the Rema is only clarifying his
words. As we are talking about a
potential Torah prohibition, even the Sephardic authorities (see Yalkut
Yosef 319:16) rule stringently on this matter.
Summary
In sum, the prohibition of borer applies even to separating two
types of food.
SORTING
How does Halakha view a situation in which there are two types of
okhel, neither of which is currently
desired? What if one is interested
not in one or the other, but both — just not for immediate use, but for a
longer-term purpose?
For example, what if one wants to arrange the pieces on a
chessboard after a game is over?
One is not interested in
the immediate use of these pieces, but rather in the next game, which may not happen for
quite a while.
Alternatively, what if one wants to sort silverware for the next
meal? At the moment, knives are not
more desirable than forks — one wants both, just for later use. Is this permissible?
Presumably, this depends on the question of the reasoning behind
the prohibition of bereira of two
types of food. According to the
aforementioned view of Tosafot, this prohibition stems from the fact that the
undesired type is regarded as pesolet, so that one is in fact removing
pesolet from okhel. However, one may understand that there
is no pesolet here; rather, the very
separation between two things is forbidden, since every separation involves a
tikkun of those items, and therefore it is prohibited as borer.
If we understand that the unwanted type is regarded as pesolet, we may say that since neither
type is currently desired, as one wishes to use both of them at a later point,
there is neither pesolet nor okhel in this case, so there cannot be a
prohibition of borer. However, if we understand that the very
separation between the two types is forbidden, such sorting would be
forbidden.
This issue is disputed by the Acharonim. The Peri Megadim (Mishbetzot
Zahav 320:2) indicates that such sorting could be permitted on Shabbat, as
there is neither okhel nor pesolet, while the Bei'ur Halakha (319:3, s.v. Hayu lefanav) rules that the prohibition of
borer applies here as
well:
The Peri Megadim is in doubt whether one's selection of
one type from another, with the intention to set aside both for a later point,
is considered bereira — after all,
where is the okhel and where is the
pesolet?
In my humble opinion, it seems obvious from the language of the
Rambam that he maintains that the essence of the melakha of bereira is to select one type from
another, so that each type becomes independent; but if one's intention is to eat
right away, and it is in one's hands — this is how one eats!
If so, a fortiori, given that a selection process which leaves
one type in place is considered to be bereira, all the more so in a selection
process which involves taking each type and setting it down on its own, is one
liable... When one sorts two types
of food, [separating] each from the other in order to eat each type
independently at a later point, one is definitely improving both of them through
one's bereira, and it is indisputably
borer, as we have
written.
According to the Bei'ur Halakha, this type of sorting is
even worse than regular bereira of
two types of food. In regular bereira, one takes only one type,
leaving the other in its place, while in the case of sorting, one places each of
these in a separate place, and it turns out that one has done an act of bereira with both of the types, and all
the more so, one should be liable for violating the prohibition of borer!
The Peri Megadim understands that the prohibition to
select one type of food from another is based on the fact that the undesired
type is defined as pesolet. Naturally, when one wants both of them
at a later time, there is neither pesolet nor okhel, and ipso facto, there is no
prohibition of borer.
On the other hand, the Bei'ur Halakha understands that the
very separation between two types is forbidden, as the creation of a state in
which every type stands on its own is considered tikkun. If, in a situation in which one only
wants to use one type out of two it is considered bereira because one is fixing that type, then
certainly when one wants both types and separates them, this renders one liable
for violating borer, because one is
executing tikkun on both of the
types!
Halakha:
Based on the Bei'ur Halakha’s ruling to forbid sorting of this
type, the accepted ruling is that it is forbidden. Of course, if one needs both types
immediately (e.g., if one wants to play another game right now, or one wants to
begin a meal soon), it is permitted to sort them, even according to the view of
the Bei'ur Halakha. Similarly, one
may take the view of the Peri Megadim into consideration as an argument for
leniency when there are other mitigating factors.
|
