Hilchos Shabbos: Tochen Al Yedei Shinui — Crushing, Mashing, and the Definition of Shinui

Topics

• Hilchos Shabbos: Tochen Al Yedei Shinui — Crushing Spices and Mashing Food
• Laduch Pilpelin: The Starting Point in Shulchan Aruch
• Two Shinuyim, One Shinui, and the Problem of Vegetables
• Rav Moshe's Question on the Chazon Ish
• A Possible Difference Between Pepper and Salt
• Mashing Potatoes in a Pot or on a Small Plate
• Rav Nissim Karelitz: Is Shinui Defined by Difficulty?
• Is the Change in the Tool, or the Difficulty of the Action?
• Rav Moshe: An Unusual Use of an Ordinary Utensil
• Tochen After Cooking: Is the Food Already Broken Down?
• Soup Potatoes, Cholent, Squash, and Bananas
• What Exactly Is Kata DeSakina?

Transcript

# Hilchos Shabbos: Tochen Al Yedei Shinui — Crushing Spices and Mashing Food

## Laduch Pilpelin: The Starting Point in Shulchan Aruch

Rabosai, yesterday we began the *sugya* of **tochen al yedei shinui**. Today I want to understand exactly **what kind of shinui** Chazal permitted. Where must the change be? In the implement? In the surface? In the way the act is performed? And how much of a change is enough?

Take out **Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 321:7**:

**"מותר לדוך פלפלין אפילו הרבה יחד, והוא שידוכם בקתא של סכין ובקערה."**

One may **crush peppercorns** for Shabbos using **the handle of a knife** and **a bowl**, rather than the ordinary implements for grinding. Of course, one must observe the passage's conditions; the Mishnah Berurah restricts the amount to what is needed for that Shabbos.

Now, notice the word **"לדוך"**. The Mechaber does not say *litochen* here. Tochen is grinding; **dichah** is crushing or pounding. Are they precisely the same act? We are dealing with the laws of *tochen*, but the unusual wording may help us understand the case.

I am not claiming that we can derive an entirely new *psak* from the choice of one verb. First we must understand the *metzius*. **Peppercorns are crushed to make a spice.** That is a particular sort of activity.

The Mechaber mentions **"פלפלין"**, but the **Mishnah Berurah 321:23** clearly includes **other spices—"ושאר תבלין"**. Grinding such spices ordinarily in a mortar can involve the full *melachah* of *tochen*. So the word pepper does not exclude other *tavlinim*.

But does the same rule automatically govern **vegetables**? That is my question.

A peppercorn normally needs to be **ground** to make a seasoning. Mashing a soft banana or potato may be a very different act. We should not confuse crushing hard spices into fine particles with squashing a soft vegetable.

And now look at the **two elements** in the Mechaber's wording: **"בקתא של סכין ובקערה"**. Do we need **two shinuyim**—an unusual implement and an unusual surface? Or are these **alternative examples** of a single substantial *shinui*?

The **Magen Avraham 321:9** reads the wording as permitting either method in certain circumstances. But the **Mishnah Berurah 321:25** adopts the stringent formulation: **"דהוי תרי שינויי"**, two changes, because ordinary pounding in a mortar still resembles a weekday act even if the handle is unusual.

And the Mishnah Berurah compares cutting pepper finely with cutting vegetables finely. How far does that comparison go?

I want to read the passages inside. That's what will open the whole *sugya* for us.

## Two Shinuyim, One Shinui, and the Problem of Vegetables

The **Mishnah Berurah 321:25** explains that a person may not simply pound spices in the ordinary **mortar and pestle** while changing one small detail. Using **the handle of a knife** is a *shinui* in the implement, and using a bowl or a tabletop instead of the usual mortar is another change.

But the **Magen Avraham** understood the word **"ובקערה"** somewhat differently. Perhaps the Shulchan Aruch is giving **alternative ways** of crushing: with the handle of a knife, or with the bottom of a bowl.

The Mishnah Berurah follows the stricter understanding. A *shinui* must be real, not a symbolic gesture.

Now let's look carefully at **vegetables**. The same Mishnah Berurah compares finely cutting pepper with finely cutting **yerek**, but in the **Shaar HaTziyun** he discusses whether the entire law should be compared to cutting vegetables, including the question of **l'alter**—preparing for immediate consumption.

Why should we automatically apply every rule of crushed pepper to **mashing a banana**?

A peppercorn is ordinarily made into spice through an implement designed to grind. But when you mash a banana with a fork, are you really changing the whole method of doing *tochen*? People mash bananas with forks during the week! Even with the back of a fork, how *meshuneh* is that?

This question has been bothering me for years. The ordinary way to prepare pepper involves a **machteshes**. Changing from that to the handle of a knife is a real departure from the normal process.

But a person who wants to mash a potato or banana might use **a fork and a plate** even during the week. Then where are the two *shinuyim*? What exactly has changed?

And this is why I wanted to learn the **Igros Moshe** again. Rav Moshe Feinstein, in **Orach Chaim IV, siman 74, Tochen, os 2**, discusses mashing bananas and the position of the **Chazon Ish**.

The Chazon Ish was stringent about mashing a banana in the ordinary way. Rav Moshe develops reasons for permitting it under certain circumstances, and he challenges the way a minor alteration in an otherwise ordinary weekday act can be treated as sufficient.

I want to read his words carefully. I feel that this is precisely the question I've been asking: **why is the back of a fork necessarily a *shinui gamur*?**

If Chazal restricted a *melachah* even when it is performed with an ordinary *shinui*, why is the crushing of pepper permitted? Perhaps this case has an **unusually complete change** in the manner of performing the act.

But how do we carry that rule over to soft vegetables? Let's examine the *Igros Moshe* inside.

## Rav Moshe's Question on the Chazon Ish

Take out **Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim IV:74, Tochen 2**. I want you to see the *shakla vetarya*, not simply a conclusion that bananas are permitted or prohibited.

The **Chazon Ish** discusses the mashing of bananas, especially where the food is being prepared for a young child. He is concerned that reducing it to a mash may involve *tochen*, even though the final product clings together. Rav Moshe disputes parts of this approach, including the definition of grinding and the relevance of **l'alter**.

And Rav Moshe asks how an ordinary act of grinding, prohibited *min haTorah* according to a stringent premise, could be made entirely permitted merely by using **a small shinui**. After all, many *melachos* done with a change may still be prohibited **midrabbanan**.

*Rabosai*, that is exactly the point I have been trying to understand!

It isn't enough to wave a fork around and say, "This is a shinui." We must ask whether the **whole manner of doing the work** is genuinely different.

The normal *sugya* in the Shulchan Aruch is about **peppercorns**, normally ground in a tool specifically intended for grinding. Changing **both the tool and the vessel** can make the act substantially unlike ordinary grinding.

But if a banana is mashed in a plate with the back of a fork, perhaps that's very close to how people mash bananas anyway. Where is the large change?

I was discussing this with the *oilam*, and **Reb Shabsi** suggested a *mahalach* I found very illuminating. Maybe **peppercorns require two shinuyim** because the whole activity is an established grinding process, while **mashing softer vegetables** may have a different *geder*. Maybe the rules shouldn't be copied mechanically from one to the other.

I was excited because it helped me distinguish **dichah**, pounding spices, from **me'ichah**, mashing soft food. The words may reflect different processes.

One possible source for this distinction is the **Gra** on the Shulchan Aruch, as the students are discussing. The *shiur* considers whether the Gra treats **peppercorns** and **salt** differently with respect to the required changes.

But immediately there's a problem. The **Mishnah Berurah 321:28** compares crushing coarse salt to the rules for pepper. In his *psak*, the vessel restriction appears to apply to both!

So I can't simply announce a neat distinction and pretend we have solved every source. We need to see what the **Gra** says, and what the **Mishnah Berurah** actually rules.

This is what learning is about. We find a *sevara*, test it against the sources, then refine it when we encounter a contradiction.

And, *rabosai*, I want you to hear how much *simchah* a clear *nekudah* in learning can bring. We have been wrestling with this *sugya* for days. Today I finally feel we're beginning to see what the real question is.

## A Possible Difference Between Pepper and Salt

Now, *rabosai*, let's test the idea suggested by Reb Shabsi.

Maybe the two *shinuyim* in the Mechaber's rule were meant especially for **crushing peppercorns**. It is the ordinary act of manufacturing a spice from a hard ingredient. You would normally use a **mortar and pestle**, and here Chazal permit a markedly different method.

But what about **coarse salt**? In **Orach Chaim 321:8**, the Mechaber says:

**"אין כותתין מלח במדוך של עץ, אבל מרסק הוא ביד של סכין ובעץ הפרור ואינו חושש."**

You may not pound coarse salt with an ordinary pestle, but there is a permitted way to crush it using the back or handle of a knife and an appropriate implement.

I wondered if the **Gra** understands the two cases differently. Making a new spice is one thing; breaking apart a block of coarse salt might be another. And mashing a soft vegetable may be different again.

This could explain why the Mechaber uses different expressions: **לדוך** for pepper and **לרסק** for salt. I don't want to claim the vocabulary alone settles the *halachah*, but it supports asking whether the activities are identical.

However, the **Mishnah Berurah 321:28** says that salt must be crushed in a bowl or on a table and not in the ordinary mortar, **"וכנ"ל גבי פלפלין"**—as explained with pepper.

There goes our easy answer! He expressly compares salt with pepper.

Now, a *talmid* can argue that this refers only to the **improper mortar**, not necessarily every other aspect of the pepper rule. Maybe. We need to check. But we can't ignore the comparison.

I was so happy today that the basic *nekudah* became clear in my mind. I was walking around saying **"Yom simchas libi!"** Give me a mazel tov! When a difficult *sugya* begins to make sense, it's as though you have celebrated a *simchah*.

And I'll tell you, the joy of learning should spill over into **chesed**. I found myself helping whoever came to ask a favor. I was in such a good mood from the Torah!

But don't think I'm finished with the *sugya*. We still need to understand whether mashing potatoes or bananas with the back of a spoon involves **one shinui, two shinuyim, or perhaps a different heter entirely**.

Let's take the case of an ordinary **mashed potato** and examine what changes if you use a little bowl instead of the main pot.

## Mashing Potatoes in a Pot or on a Small Plate

Suppose someone prepares mashed potatoes during the week. How does he do it? He takes a **potato masher**, puts it into the pot, and mashes the potatoes **in the pot**. This is an ordinary weekday process.

Now on Shabbos someone takes the **back of a fork** and mashes the potato. What is the *shinui*? Perhaps the tool is different. But if a person also uses a fork on weekdays, maybe that is not a sufficient difference.

And where does he mash? **In the main pot? In a serving bowl? Or in a small plate immediately before eating?**

Maybe these are not the same. If someone mashes in a small personal plate, that might be a change from the customary preparation in a large pot. And perhaps it also makes clear that he is preparing **l'alter**, for immediate eating, rather than for later.

The **Rema on Orach Chaim 321:12** and later *poskim* discuss cutting or preparing food **for immediate consumption**. Rav Moshe's analysis of mashing bananas also raises the relevance of *l'alter*.

So maybe there are two considerations together: an unusual way of using the utensil, **and** preparing directly in the eating vessel for immediate use.

Now, *rabosai*, I am not comfortable simply announcing this as a *heter*. If you say a plate is a separate *shinui*, you have to prove that it is truly a meaningful difference in how the action is normally performed.

Sometimes a person mashes a potato on a plate during the week too! And a small bowl may not differ very much from a serving bowl. We have to examine how people actually prepare the food.

But I can understand that a *posek* might combine such considerations: **the tool, the vessel, and the timing of immediate eating**.

The *shiur* compares this to **mortars and pestles**. The classical *shinui* is using a tool and vessel that are genuinely unlike those used for grinding. A small personal plate might help distinguish the action, but it cannot simply be equated with the specific ruling for pepper without source support.

This is the difficulty. **I can hear the sevara, but I don't love it yet.** It needs a proper *makor*.

And we have to go further, because **Rav Nissim Karelitz** discusses a still more interesting point: what if using the back of a fork is not especially unusual anymore? What exactly makes it a *shinui*?

Let's read him carefully.

## Rav Nissim Karelitz: Is Shinui Defined by Difficulty?

I found a passage attributed to **Rav Nissim Karelitz** in a discussion of **Hilchos Shabbos** that really opened the *sugya* for me.

The question is this: some people normally mash food with a fork even on weekdays. If they do so, how can using a fork on Shabbos be considered a change from the weekday method?

And even the **back of a fork** is not always harder or less effective. Sometimes it works better than the tines. If it has become the normal method, what has changed?

The passage, as read in our *chaburah*, places emphasis on whether the action becomes a **more difficult operation**, a *pe'ulah kashah*, by being performed in the alternative manner.

When I saw that, I said, *rabosai*, do you hear? We had been asking what a *shinui* means. Maybe it isn't defined solely by **which tool** you hold. Perhaps there is also a difference in **how demanding and awkward the action is to perform**.

But immediately there is another *kashya*: making something more difficult does not necessarily make it an entirely different *melachah*. A person can perform the same weekday act awkwardly, and the action may still be prohibited *midrabbanan*.

The **Beis Yosef** discusses the distinction between an ordinary *shinui*, which can still leave a rabbinic prohibition, and a **shinui gamur**, a substantial departure from the normal performance.

So if we want to say that difficulty is the essential criterion, we must explain why this isn't merely an ordinary change that still remains prohibited.

Now, I want you to know how strongly these words struck me. For years I couldn't understand how a fork or the handle of a knife made all these food preparations permitted. Suddenly I saw the very point that had bothered me being discussed by contemporary *poskim*.

I was excited; I know the *oilam* was laughing at my excitement! That's okay. My grandfather taught me stories about how precious it is to endure a little embarrassment in this world while trying to serve Hashem. The precise *Chofetz Chaim* passage behind one such story needs review, but the *mussar* is dear to me.

Still, excitement doesn't replace careful learning. I want to distinguish **two possible ideas**:

One: the act becomes **difficult** because of the altered way of doing it.

Two: the person uses the **same utensil in a fundamentally different way**, regardless of whether that makes the action more difficult.

Those may be entirely different definitions of *shinui*. I want to look back at **Rav Moshe** to see which one fits better.

## Is the Change in the Tool, or the Difficulty of the Action?

Now let's sharpen this. Suppose a person normally crushes food with a particular utensil. On Shabbos he holds it awkwardly, maybe with a different grip, or does the same act in a way that requires more effort.

Would that count as a *shinui*? And if it does, would it be sufficient to permit the act entirely, or only to reduce the level of prohibition?

You hear the problem. **Not every unusual motion is a shinui gamur.** Chazal did not permit every *melachah* because someone performed it in an inconvenient way.

I am asking what gives the *heter* in the case of **קתא דסכינא**, the handle of a knife.

The passage brought in the name of **Rav Nissim Karelitz** suggests we must consider the **difficulty** of the action. Using the back of a fork might be a cumbersome and laborious way to prepare a substantial quantity compared with an appropriate potato masher.

But someone in the *chaburah* says, "Sometimes the back of the fork works better!" And that is a good *kashya*. If it is actually easier, perhaps difficulty cannot be the whole definition.

Maybe there are **two factors**. It is different from the normal activity of grinding with a dedicated machine or *machteshes*. And even when people occasionally use the back of a fork during the week, preparing it that way on a larger scale is less convenient.

I don't want to turn a small observation in one *teshuvah* into a universal definition of *shinui*. We have to understand its context.

And this is why I want to return to **Rav Moshe Feinstein's discussion**. He may offer another approach: the *shinui* is that you are **using an ordinary implement in a different function**, not necessarily that the work is harder.

If that's the *geder*, then the handle of a knife is different because **a knife is meant to cut with the blade**. Using its handle to pound something is not its ordinary use.

And then our questions about plates and forks must be reconsidered. It's not enough to ask, "Is it harder?" We have to ask, **"What is this utensil normally made for, and how am I using it?"**

That is the *nekudah* I want the *oilam* to understand. All the practical discussions about bananas, potatoes and cooked vegetables hinge on this more fundamental question.

We should test both approaches against the actual *sefarim*, because both can sound attractive until a source doesn't fit.

## Rav Moshe: An Unusual Use of an Ordinary Utensil

Let us read the next passage. We are comparing a **spoon** used normally with a spoon turned around, or the ordinary blade of a knife with its **handle**.

Sometimes pressing down with the back of the spoon is no more difficult than doing it with the front. Sometimes it may even be easier for a particular food.

So if the *shinui* were only in how much effort is required, what would we say? The difficulty may not have changed at all!

But an analysis attributed here to **Rav Moshe** distinguishes **the manner in which the utensil is being used**. A spoon normally holds or scoops food with its bowl. The fact that you turn it over and use the opposite side may constitute a different use of the *kli*, even where the physical effort is comparable.

Do you hear? It isn't simply about being tired or working hard. It may be about **the customary *derech tashmisho* of the utensil**.

I want to be very precise. The question is not necessarily whether a spoon is a different *kli* from a potato masher. It is whether **using the back of the spoon** differs significantly from how that **same spoon** is ordinarily used.

An ordinary fork or knife may be handled in more than one way during the week, so the relevant *metzius* cannot be ignored. And a dedicated pounding implement can remain a pounding implement even if you hold it backward.

That is a magnificent *chiluk*. I've been asking for days, **where does the shinui live?** Is it in the physical struggle, the kind of tool, or the relationship between the tool and how it is ordinarily used?

Now the sources give us a way to formulate the question more exactly.

But again I must be careful. I am reporting the reading and discussion of the *teshuvah* from the original shiur. The precise *mareh makom* for each sentence attributed to Rav Moshe and Rav Shlomo Zalman needs to be checked in print before quoting it as their definitive ruling.

Still, I think we are uncovering the structure of the *sugya*. And that is the great *geshmak* of learning: what once looked like a collection of unrelated cases becomes **a single conceptual question**.

Now let's move to another aspect of *tochen* that will affect our practical cases: **what happens when a vegetable has already been softened and partly broken down through cooking?**

Here we may have an entirely different reason to permit mashing, independent of the question of *shinui*.

## Tochen After Cooking: Is the Food Already Broken Down?

Let's talk about **cooked vegetables**.

Suppose a potato has been cooked so long that it becomes extremely soft and almost falls apart by itself. When you mash it, are you doing the same act as crushing a hard, uncooked potato? Or has much of the physical breakdown **already occurred through the cooking**?

Both the **Chazon Ish** and **Rav Moshe Feinstein** discuss the effect of cooking and the degree to which a food has become soft. We need to be exact about the *shiur*: not every cooked vegetable is automatically soft enough.

One explanation is based on **tochen achar tochen**. If cooking has already broken down the food in a manner relevant to the *melachah*, perhaps later pressing is not introducing a new act of grinding in the same way.

Another explanation might focus more simply on the **metzius**: the food is so soft, and so nearly separated into its constituent parts, that pressing it no longer resembles grinding something substantial.

Is a banana that naturally becomes soft through ripening comparable to a vegetable that became soft **through cooking**? A banana may remain one coherent body, while a potato cooked to the point of disintegration can begin to fall apart.

Now I want to understand how **Rav Chaim Kanievsky** and other *poskim* explain the Chazon Ish. In a report quoted here, one approach distinguishes a food softened by **an active preparation process** from one that simply became soft naturally. That might sound like **tochen achar tochen**.

But another reading of the contemporary *poskim* stresses how completely the cooking **physically broke down** the vegetable. On that reading, mere softness is not the same as disintegration.

These are two different *mahalchim*. I am not going to pretend they are identical.

And that's why it matters what kind of food we're discussing. A firm boiled potato, a very soft piece of cholent potato, and a ripe banana may each have a different *metzius*.

Somebody says, "But they're all soft!" No, no. Softness isn't always the *geder* we're looking for. **Does the food hold its shape? Does it fall apart when touched? Has the cooking effectively broken it down already?**

I want to offer some examples from the kitchen, and then we'll see how the *poskim* might define these cases.

Don't use my examples as a universal *psak*. The exact consistency and the opinions of the *poskim* still matter. I want to help you understand what you're looking for.

## Soup Potatoes, Cholent, Squash, and Bananas

Now I want to speak *l'maaseh* about the kinds of vegetables we have in our homes. We are not giving a universal ruling from the name of the food; we are asking **how thoroughly it has been cooked** and **what consistency it has reached**.

Take a **potato in chicken soup**. Very often it is fully cooked and pleasant to eat, but it still has a defined shape. You can lift it on your spoon. It is not falling apart.

Compare that with a potato in **cholent**, which may have cooked for many hours until it is practically disintegrating. If it is already a mash, the question of *tochen* may be quite different.

I would distinguish those two cases. I am not saying every potato in every cholent is automatically permitted to mash; sometimes the potato is still firm. I am describing the *metzius* in the kitchen and the reasoning of the *poskim* we are learning.

What about **carrots in soup**? In many homes they remain quite firm even after cooking. And **petrushka**, the parsley root or similar white root vegetable in the soup, can also retain its structure.

On the other hand, **squash** becomes extremely soft. So can a **sweet potato or yam**, depending on how long it was cooked. Sometimes it is already nearly falling apart, and then mashing it is a different sort of act from grinding a raw vegetable.

I want you to understand the *hakdarah*: the relevant fact may be **how much the cooking itself has done the work**.

Now let's return to **bananas**.

The **Chazon Ish** is concerned about mashing bananas, treating the breakdown into a mash as *tochen* even though the pieces adhere to one another. **Rav Moshe Feinstein**, in **Igros Moshe OC IV:74, Tochen 2**, takes a more permissive view under the conditions he explains, including the discussion of **l'alter** and whether the action truly produces separate particles.

I was told of a conversation with **Rav Dovid Feinstein**, through a *talmid* whom I sent to ask about Rav Moshe's own practical approach. As the report was conveyed, Rav Moshe did not ordinarily tell people to adopt the Chazon Ish's *chumrah* when they asked about mashing bananas.

But an oral answer requires care. We cannot replace the printed responsum with my memory of a report, and the actual *halachah* may depend on the age of the child, the purpose, the timing, and the manner of mashing.

Some people want to be *machmir*, and they have a source. But a *chumrah* is not the same thing as saying the baseline *din* necessarily requires it.

I want us to understand **the opinions**, not just argue about which custom people follow.

And that brings me back to a final question: what does **קתא דסכינא** actually mean in today's kitchens, with all our different kinds of knives and utensils?

## What Exactly Is Kata DeSakina?

Let's go back to the Mechaber: **"בקתא של סכין"**—with the handle of a knife.

What knife are we talking about? A normal **table knife**, whose handle looks and functions very differently from its blade? Or could the source be speaking of some larger, specialized implement that was itself normally used for crushing?

Look at modern knives. Sometimes the handle is part of one continuous piece of metal. In other knives the blade and handle look very different. Would using the handle always qualify as an unusual way of performing the act?

And what about a utensil made especially for **pounding or crushing**? Suppose the person turns a dedicated pounder around and strikes with its handle. Does that become the equivalent of *kata de-sakina*, or is he still using a tool whose whole function is pounding?

Do you hear the *nafka minah*? If the point is that an ordinary knife is **not a grinding implement**, perhaps taking a dedicated crusher and reversing it doesn't accomplish the same *shinui*.

On the other hand, if the *geder* is **using the wrong end of the implement**, perhaps the changed manner of using it matters even with a tool ordinarily used for food preparation.

I asked the *oilam* to think about **a mortar and pestle**. The normal weekday process is very recognizable. If I use a different household tool against an ordinary plate, we can immediately see a difference. But how great must it be?

I have not finished checking the exact *Rishonim* and *Acharonim* on this detail. I also wanted to speak with a contemporary *posek* about it, and I don't want to attribute to him a ruling from an unclear secondhand exchange.

Another student asks whether it matters if the knife itself is thick or shaped for crushing. Yes, that is exactly the kind of fact that may change whether the action is an ordinary weekday process.

And remember what we learned from **Rav Moshe**, **the Chazon Ish**, and the **Mishnah Berurah**. A casual change of grip is not automatically a *shinui gamur*. We must understand the **nature of the action**, the **tool**, and the **way people normally perform it**.

I don't want to be *machria* yet. I need more time with the sources.

We can continue tomorrow, *b'ezras Hashem*. But at least we have finally clarified the central question: **what makes crushing food on Shabbos truly different from the weekday act of grinding?**

*Editorial note: The final available chunk consists of a very brief, fragmentary closing exchange without any additional substantive Torah discussion. The preceding shiur ends with a promise to continue examining the sources; no final ruling has been reconstructed.*