Koshering a Kitchen: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
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 maaseh korbanot 8:12.
* 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 it was 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.  
* 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.
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Koshering_a_Kitchen"