Koshering a Kitchen: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Glass
m (Text replacement - ". <ref>" to ".<ref>") |
(→Glass) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Tur YD 121:3 cites a dispute whether or not it is sufficient to do hagalah on a pot with a kli rishon only if it is still on the fire or even if it is removed from the fire. Bet Yosef explains that it depends on whether you learn the definition of kli rishon from hilchot Shabbat in which case it is a kli rishon even off the fire or we should say that the taste is only removed in the way that it entered which is the temperature of a kli rishon on the fire. | Tur YD 121:3 cites a dispute whether or not it is sufficient to do hagalah on a pot with a kli rishon only if it is still on the fire or even if it is removed from the fire. Bet Yosef explains that it depends on whether you learn the definition of kli rishon from hilchot Shabbat in which case it is a kli rishon even off the fire or we should say that the taste is only removed in the way that it entered which is the temperature of a kli rishon on the fire. | ||
* Hagahot Smak 213 n. 5 that it needs to be boiling and not just yad soledet bo. Bet Yosef 452:1 and Shach (Nekudat Hakesef 93:1) quote this. Trumat Hadeshen 1:131, 2:150 agrees. | * Hagahot Smak 213 n. 5 that it needs to be boiling and not just yad soledet bo. Bet Yosef 452:1 and Shach (Nekudat Hakesef 93:1) quote this. Trumat Hadeshen 1:131, 2:150 agrees. | ||
* Maharshal 26 implies that yad soledet is sufficient for hagalah. Pri Megadim M”Z 452:3 does entertain that possibility that yad soledet is enough. He proves it from the Rambam | * Maharshal 26 implies that yad soledet is sufficient for hagalah. Pri Megadim M”Z 452:3 does entertain that possibility that yad soledet is enough. He proves it from the Rambam Maaseh Korbanot 8:12. | ||
* Meor Hashemesh 1:2 p. 507 proves from the language of the Tur that rotchin is the same as yad soledet and that is sufficient for hagalah. He says that this is also the opinion of the Rosh Pesachim 2:7 and boiling is necessary that the taste doesn't reenter the pot. </ref> Some poskim hold that it always needs to be a bubbling boil, while others hold that it is sufficient if | * Meor Hashemesh 1:2 p. 507 proves from the language of the Tur that ''rotchin'' is the same as yad soledet and that is sufficient for hagalah. He says that this is also the opinion of the Rosh Pesachim 2:7 and boiling is necessary that the taste doesn't reenter the pot. </ref> Some poskim hold that it always needs to be a bubbling boil, while others hold that it is sufficient even if the pot was removed from the fire if the reason for the hagalah is a permitted absorption (''hetera baala'').<ref>Shulchan Aruch YD 121:3 doesn’t resolve that question but simply writes that it is the same as hilchot pesach. Tur 451:6 only mentions the opinion that hagalah is effective even if it is removed from the fire. | ||
* Bach 451:8 is bothered by the discrepancy in the Tur and resolves it by saying that the Tur was only lenient if that is how the utensil is used off the fire. | * Bach 451:8 is bothered by the discrepancy in the Tur and resolves it by saying that the Tur was only lenient if that is how the utensil is used off the fire. | ||
* Ayin Yitzchak YD 13:4 answers that chametz is hetera baala. Ayin Yitzchak YD 13:3-7 writes the opinion of the Rambam (Maaseh Korbanot 8:14) and Tur is that hagalah for hetera is effective even if the kli rishon was removed from the fire. However, for a utensil that was used on the fire even though it was hetera baala and it can be koshered with hagalah that would require hagalah with a kli rishon on the fire. He concludes that one can be lenient like the Rambam. (Hagalat Kelim p. 401 quotes the Kahal Yehuda 121:3 who points out that the Shulchan Aruch implies that he doesn’t accept that answer since he compared chametz with isura. Also, according to the Mikdash Dovid Kodshim 31:1 or Pri Toar 122:5 there is no proof from the Rambam who is lenient for kodshim specifically.) Shulchan Aruch Harav 451:25 also writes that one can rely on the opinion that hagalah off the fire is sufficient whenever it is hetera baala. Hagalat Kelim p. 401 quotes this also from Emek Sheylah 137:5. | * Ayin Yitzchak YD 13:4 answers that chametz is hetera baala. Ayin Yitzchak YD 13:3-7 writes the opinion of the Rambam (Maaseh Korbanot 8:14) and Tur is that hagalah for hetera is effective even if the kli rishon was removed from the fire. However, for a utensil that was used on the fire even though it was hetera baala and it can be koshered with hagalah that would require hagalah with a kli rishon on the fire. He concludes that one can be lenient like the Rambam. (Hagalat Kelim p. 401 quotes the Kahal Yehuda 121:3 who points out that the Shulchan Aruch implies that he doesn’t accept that answer since he compared chametz with isura. Also, according to the Mikdash Dovid Kodshim 31:1 or Pri Toar 122:5 there is no proof from the Rambam who is lenient for kodshim specifically.) Shulchan Aruch Harav 451:25 also writes that one can rely on the opinion that hagalah off the fire is sufficient whenever it is hetera baala. Hagalat Kelim p. 401 quotes this also from Emek Sheylah 137:5. | ||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
# Hagalah works for pots that were used for liquids even though in the course of being used were used for temperatures above 212 degrees.<Ref>Hagalat Kelim p. 400 writes that although there’s many cases where cooking involves temperatures above 212 such as deep frying in oil, cooking a solid, cooking with a cover so that it pops up because of pressure and in all these cases it is acceptable to do hagalah. Chut Shani Pesach 10:8 agrees because we never find in chazal a type of hagalah that needs to be hotter than boiling water.</ref> Additionally, in altitudes where it is possible to boil water at lower than 212 that is also effective hagalah.<ref>Hagalat Kelim p. 401 quoting Rav Shlomo Zalman that hagalah doesn’t need to be at the same temperature that the food entered and the poskim never distinguished between hagalah at different altitudes.</ref> | # Hagalah works for pots that were used for liquids even though in the course of being used were used for temperatures above 212 degrees.<Ref>Hagalat Kelim p. 400 writes that although there’s many cases where cooking involves temperatures above 212 such as deep frying in oil, cooking a solid, cooking with a cover so that it pops up because of pressure and in all these cases it is acceptable to do hagalah. Chut Shani Pesach 10:8 agrees because we never find in chazal a type of hagalah that needs to be hotter than boiling water.</ref> Additionally, in altitudes where it is possible to boil water at lower than 212 that is also effective hagalah.<ref>Hagalat Kelim p. 401 quoting Rav Shlomo Zalman that hagalah doesn’t need to be at the same temperature that the food entered and the poskim never distinguished between hagalah at different altitudes.</ref> | ||
# A pressure cooker which can cook foods at higher temperatures than 212 and yet many poskim hold that it can be koshered with hagalah of boiling water at 212.<ref>Chut Shani Pesach 10:8 p. 124, Hagalat Kelim p. 400 citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Chazon Ovadia n. 2, Betzel Chachma 3:55</ref> | # A pressure cooker which can cook foods at higher temperatures than 212 and yet many poskim hold that it can be koshered with hagalah of boiling water at 212.<ref>Chut Shani Pesach 10:8 p. 124, Hagalat Kelim p. 400 citing Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Chazon Ovadia n. 2, Betzel Chachma 3:55</ref> | ||
# The utensils put in the boiling water should be left there for a few seconds and some recommend ten seconds.<ref>The [https://oukosher.org/passover/articles/kashering-for-passover/ | # The utensils put in the boiling water should be left there for a few seconds and some recommend ten seconds.<ref>The [https://oukosher.org/passover/articles/kashering-for-passover/ OU] writes that one should leave the utensils in the boiling water for ten seconds, while the [https://www.kof-k.org/articles/040408080457W-21%20Hagolah%20(Rabbi%20Neustadt).pdf Kof K] writes a few seconds. Shaar Hatziyun 452:3 writes that the Tur and Pri Chadash hold that the utensils can be removed immediately unlike the Taz who says it needs to be there for some time. Shaar Hatziyun recommends leaving it for a little bit of time. | ||
* Pri Chadash 452:6 writes that the Ramban Chullin 108b s.v. vrabbenu, Rambam Chametz Umatza 5:24, Ran Pesachim 8b s.v. vkach, and Rashba 1:479 hold that the utensil should be left in the boiling water for some unspecified amount of time so that the absorptions can be removed. However, the Tur, Mordechai Chullin 579, and Hagahot Maimoniyot Kushta Chametz Umatza 5:23 hold that the utensils can be removed immediately. Pri Chadash concludes that such is the minhag. | * Pri Chadash 452:6 writes that the Ramban Chullin 108b s.v. vrabbenu, Rambam Chametz Umatza 5:24, Ran Pesachim 8b s.v. vkach, and Rashba 1:479 hold that the utensil should be left in the boiling water for some unspecified amount of time so that the absorptions can be removed. However, the Tur, Mordechai Chullin 579, and Hagahot Maimoniyot Kushta Chametz Umatza 5:23 hold that the utensils can be removed immediately. Pri Chadash concludes that such is the minhag. | ||
* Meiri Avoda Zara s.v. kshemartichin writes that certainly the utensil needs to be left in the pot long enough for the utensil to heat up (to Yad Soledet Bo). See Sefer Hagalat Kelim who cites this.</ref> | * Meiri Avoda Zara 76a s.v. kshemartichin writes that certainly the utensil needs to be left in the pot long enough for the utensil to heat up (to Yad Soledet Bo). See Sefer Hagalat Kelim who cites this.</ref> | ||
==Libun== | ==Libun== | ||
| Line 69: | Line 67: | ||
*However, the Tur 91:2 cites the Baal Haitur who writes that it is forbidden to place meat in a dairy utensil since one might forget to wash it off afterwards. | *However, the Tur 91:2 cites the Baal Haitur who writes that it is forbidden to place meat in a dairy utensil since one might forget to wash it off afterwards. | ||
*''Question'': The Rama (Torat Chatat 17:2 and Darkei Moshe 91) is bothered with this contradiction. He answers 4 answers: | *''Question'': The Rama (Torat Chatat 17:2 and Darkei Moshe 91) is bothered with this contradiction. He answers 4 answers: | ||
#We are concerned with meat since it is moist but not concerned about spices or matzah which are dry. | #We are concerned with meat since it is moist but not concerned about spices or matzah which are dry. | ||
#We are concerned for other prohibitions but not chametz. | #We are concerned for other prohibitions but not chametz. | ||
#We are concerned when the utensil was originally used for hot non-kosher but not if it was used for cold non-kosher (or meat in pot that was originally used for cold dairy). | #We are concerned when the utensil was originally used for hot non-kosher but not if it was used for cold non-kosher (or meat in pot that was originally used for cold dairy). | ||
#We are concerned when the utensil wasn't cleaned well. | #We are concerned when the utensil wasn't cleaned well. | ||
*Rama 91:2 implies that he accepts answers 1 and 3 and requires both but Taz 91:3 explains that either is sufficient. Shach 91:3 only accepts the fourth answer.</ref> However, one shouldn’t use non-kosher earthenware utensils even for cold.<ref>Shach 91:3, Pri Chadash 91:3, Badei Hashulchan 91:15. Pri Chadash 91:3 explains that the reason to be strict is that we're concerned that a person is going to use it for hot. However, for a metal utensil we're not concerned for a short usage that one will use it with hot since one would first do hagalah. See Kaf HaChaim 91:10 who permits using non-kosher earthenware utensils that belong to a non-Jew for cold.</ref> | *Rama 91:2 implies that he accepts answers 1 and 3 and requires both but Taz 91:3 explains that either is sufficient. Shach 91:3 only accepts the fourth answer.</ref> However, one shouldn’t use non-kosher earthenware utensils even for cold.<ref>Shach 91:3, Pri Chadash 91:3, Badei Hashulchan 91:15. Pri Chadash 91:3 explains that the reason to be strict is that we're concerned that a person is going to use it for hot. However, for a metal utensil we're not concerned for a short usage that one will use it with hot since one would first do hagalah. See Kaf HaChaim 91:10 who permits using non-kosher earthenware utensils that belong to a non-Jew for cold.</ref> | ||
#It is permitted to own a non-kosher utensil and not use it as there’s no concern that you’ll come to use it for a forbidden use.<ref>Kaf Hachaim 91:9. See Chashukei Chemed Yoma 66a who cites the Panim Meirot 1:23 who says that there's no concern that if one owns a non-kosher utensil one will come to use it. However, the Ketav Sofer YD 28 holds that it is a concern. It is similar to the Gemara Yoma 66a and Pesachim 20b where chazal are concerned about holding onto something forbidden because you might use it.</ref> | #It is permitted to own a non-kosher utensil and not use it as there’s no concern that you’ll come to use it for a forbidden use.<ref>Kaf Hachaim 91:9. See Chashukei Chemed Yoma 66a who cites the Panim Meirot 1:23 who says that there's no concern that if one owns a non-kosher utensil one will come to use it. However, the Ketav Sofer YD 28 holds that it is a concern. It is similar to the Gemara Yoma 66a and Pesachim 20b where chazal are concerned about holding onto something forbidden because you might use it. | ||
* Rambam Trumot 12:12 implies that there's a prohibition to keep impure trumah and we don't allow keeping it in order to sprinkle on the floor periodically since we're concerned that a person is going to make a mistake and eat it. Mahari Kurkus explains that the rambam held this even though the Gemara Pesachim 20b implies that Bet Hillel isn't concerned for that because in several places the Gemara (Shabbat 17b) is concerned. Bet Halevi 1:52 adds that Sotah 48a is a another proof. However, the Rabbenu Chananel and Rashba b"k 115b s.v. vtakala hold like Bet Hillel.</ref> | |||
==Frying Pan== | ==Frying Pan== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 89: | ||
==Glass== | ==Glass== | ||
#According to Ashkenazim, glass can not be kashered for Pesach. For other prohibitions such as meat and milk it is a dispute whether it does not absorb anything, does absorb and can be kashered, or can not be kashered.<ref>[https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/kashering-glass-part-ii-by-rabbi-chaim-jachter Rabbi Jachter] quotes Rav Schachter holds that glass can be kashered three times, Yachava Daat 1:6, Sereidei Esh 2:36, and Minchat Yitzchak 1:86 hold that glass can absorb but can be kashered, while Shevet Halevi 1:43 holds that glass can not be kashered even for other prohibitions. </ref> | |||
#According to most Sephardim, glass utensils don't absorb any taste and therefore, do not become non-kosher, between meat and milk or chametz and pesach. However, the common practice is to have two sets of dishes, one for milk and one for meat.<ref>Rabbi Mansour on [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=855 dailyhalacha.com] writes that Syrains are lenient but still have two sets of dishes. Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S"A 451:39) writes that most Sephardim are lenient but some Persians are strict about this for Pesach but not milk and meat.</ref> | #According to most Sephardim, glass utensils don't absorb any taste and therefore, do not become non-kosher, between meat and milk or chametz and pesach. However, the common practice is to have two sets of dishes, one for milk and one for meat.<ref>Rabbi Mansour on [http://www.dailyhalacha.com/m/halacha.aspx?id=855 dailyhalacha.com] writes that Syrains are lenient but still have two sets of dishes. Yalkut Yosef (Kitzur S"A 451:39) writes that most Sephardim are lenient but some Persians are strict about this for Pesach but not milk and meat.</ref> | ||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
