This is the approved revision of this page, as well as being the most recent.
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- If something permitted was cooked with something forbidden in a kli sheni after the fact the food is permitted. Some are strict unless there is a case of great loss.
- If something forbidden was cooked in a pot or utensil that was a kli sheni the pot or utensil needs to be koshered. Some poskim hold it doesn't need to be koshered.
- The Rama Y.D 94:7 holds that a solid item in a kli sheni is a kli sheni and there's no difference between a solid and a liquid after they landed. Chavot Daat 92:23 cites Minchat Yakov 61:45 writes that even if a dvar gush is like a kli rishon it can't accomplish bishul, so it can't be boleh umaflit kechad. See Magen Avraham 318:45.
- A solid item that falls onto something cold according to the Maharshal is considered a kli rishon, while according to the Rama is considered a broken stream iruy. If that solid item is mixed with hot liquids the Rama agrees that even the solid is considered like an unbroken stream iruy since it is mixed in hot liquids.
- There is a dispute whether a ladle that was dipped into a kli rishon pot is considered like a kli rishon or a kli sheni unless it was left in the pot for a long time so that it like become a kli rishon as well.
- Liquids that poured out of a ladle are to be treated stringently like iruy kli rishon.
- If something permitted was cooked with something forbidden in a kli shelishi, after the fact some hold that the food is permitted. Some say that a kli shelishi is the same as a kli sheni.
- If something forbidden is poured onto something permitted or the opposite or meat and milk, the pour can transfer a taste up to the thickness of a peel. The thickness of a peel is the amount that it could be peeled at one time. If hot milk from a kli rishon fell on a meat pot the thickness of a peel of the pot is rendered non-kosher and needs to be koshered. If one accidentally cooked in it without koshering the food is nonetheless kosher.
- If the stream is unbroken there is enough heat to heat up each side and completely transfer tastes one to another. If the stream is broken there is only enough heat to heat up each side but not enough to heat it up and extract a taste and have it absorbed into the other side simultaneously. For example, if hot water in a broken stream poured onto cold cheese which was sitting on a meat dish the cheese and the dish are kosher. Another example is that it is permitted to pour with a broken stream hot water on chickens which weren't salted since the heat of the stream isn't enough to heat up the blood and to have it get absorbed into the chicken.
- If an unbroken stream of hot liquids overflow from a pot on the fire and go along a surface until it touches something it is considered an unbroken pour to transfer taste up to a peel. If the stream is broken it is considered a kli sheni.
- A solid piece of food that is picked up on a fork or with one's hand is considered a kli rishon until it is placed on the plate or bowl.  As it is being placed down on the plate or bowl that is considered iruy. After it settles it is considered a kli sheni.
Cham Miksato Cham Kulo
- If a metal utensil is used to cook and only part of it is actively involved in the cooking, there is a multitude of opinions as to how to consider whether or not the taste was transferred throughout the utensil or not. One school of rishonim take the concept of Cham Miksato Cham Kulo, literally, that a utensil that is partially hot is completely hot, and apply it to the idea that we can assume that tastes absorbed in the walls of utensils spread throughout the utensil even if they only abosrbed the taste in one area. Others argue and hold that the only part that is considered to have absorbed the taste of the food is the part that was in contact with the food and the tastes don't travel within the utensil. Still many others have a compromise opinions. The halacha is explained below.
Using Two Sides of a Utensil
- If a utensil absorbed a forbidden taste in one spot we are not concerned that it traveled throughout the utensil. Therefore, if one used the other side of that utensil to cook something kosher the utensil doesn't impart non-kosher taste to the kosher food. However, most authorities hold that there are absorptions in the other side of the utensil and forbid the food. The lenient view is assuming that the utensil isn't completely hot and this isn't dry heat absorption. See next section for that halacha.
- If a utensil absorbed a forbidden taste in one spot and then that utensil is used again in that same spot, we only need to nullify the amount of the utensil that was used because we assume that the amount that was absorbed was only absorbed in that spot that was in contact with the food. This assumes that the utensil isn't completely hot and this isn't dry heat absorption. See next section for that halacha.
Factors to Accept Cham Miksato
- If the entire kli is actually hot then the tastes from the food travel throughout the pot even the part that isn't being used.
- If the heat was dry heat i.e. it wasn't cooking, such as roasting, then it spreads throughout the kli.
- Some poskim hold that a spoon that was used to mix a hot pot is considered to absorb taste up to the point that the spoon entered into the pot and not just up to the point that it entered into the food. The reason for this opinion is that the spoon can absorb taste up while it is in the pot from the zeyia of the hot food even though it is an open pot. Most opinions are lenient.
- Some distinguish between whether the absorption was isura baala or hetera baala and hold that we don't say cham miksato when it was hetera baala.
- In terms of doing hechsher on part of a utensil. If the utensil only ever came into contact with the forbidden taste in one spot, according to Ashkenazim, according to the strict law many hold that could kasher only that spot. However, initially one should kasher everything. After the fact if one did use the spot that was used and had the hechsher, the food is still kosher. After the fact if one did use the other side of the utensil that was not originally used and didn't have a hechsher, the food is forbidden. Sephardim certainly hold that one should kasher the entire utensil.
- If the utensil was used to cook throughout the utensil and one only did a partial hechsher it is ineffective even if one used the part of the utensil that one did the hechsher on and if one used it for food it would make impart non-kosher taste.
- Does Cham Miksato Cham Kulo transfer from one utensil to another if they are attached? There is a large dispute about this point. 
Mavliya Umaflit K'echad
- According to the Taz a kli sheni can be mavliya or maflit but not both simultaneously.
- According to the Shach, an unbroken stream can be mavliya umaflit kechad but a broken stream can be mavliya or maflit but not both simultaneously.
- According to the Chavot Daat an unbroken stream on a cold surface can be mavliya or maflit but not both simultaneously.
- According to Chavot Daat a dvar gush can be mavliya or maflit but not both simultaneously. Magen Avraham argues that it can do both simultaneously.
- What does that mean that something can't be mavliya and maflit simultaneously?
- Taste doesn't transfer from one solid to another solid (Pri Megadim M"Z 105:4).
- Taste doesn't transfer from one solid to another through a liquid (Dagul Mirvava 105:3).
- Taste doesn't transfer from a liquid to a liquid through a solid (Chavot Daat 92:22).
Not Yad Soledet Bo
- A kli rishon that isn’t yad soledet bo one shouldn’t use initially for something that isn’t kosher. After the fact it could make something non-kosher up to a klipah.
- A kli sheni that isn’t yad soledet bo one shouldn’t use initially but after the fact it doesn’t make something non-kosher at all.
- Some hold that there are no transfer of tastes unless the food becomes Yad Soledet Bo, while most poskim disagree.
- If a food fell onto a hot surface and it was removed immediately some say that it is permitted as long as the piece didn't reach Yad Soledet Bo. Most others disagree.
Dry Heat and Roasting (Tzeli)
||If It Isn't Fatty
||If It Is Fatty
|Absorbed in Food
|Absorbed in Food
|Absorbed in a Utensil
|Absorbed in a Utensil
|Intrinsically Forbidden Food
||Up to 2cm
|Intrinsically Forbidden Food
- Roasting something forbidden together with something permitted will make the permitted thing forbidden up to the thickness of a Etzbah where they touched.
- A non-kosher food that was roasted on a kosher utensil the utensil absorbs up to a peel.
Absorbed Forbidden Tastes in Food
- A food which absorbed a taste of something forbidden that is then roasted together with another food that other food doesn't become forbidden at all unless the food that absorbed the taste is fatty. Even Ashkenazim agree that in this case we don't assume that all foods might be fatty.
- Some don't distinguish between whether the non-fatty food with an absorbed taste is transferring into a pot or a food, either way it doesn't forbid the next thing at all. However, many achronim distinguish and say that only when a non-fatty food with an absorbed taste is transferring to a food do we say that it has no effect, but from that food to a utensil it would have the effect up to a peel's worth and would require kashering.
- A kosher food that absorbed non-kosher tastes which was then roasted without liquids on a kosher utensil the utensil remains kosher.
Absorbed Forbidden Tastes in Utensils
- A dry kosher food that was roasted on a non-kosher utensil only absorbs up to a peel. If the kosher food was wet it would absorb up to a Etzbah.
- A kosher utensil that touched a non-kosher utensil with dry heat the kosher utensil remains completely kosher whether or not the absorption in the non-kosher utensil was fatty.
Pressure of a Knife (Duchka Dsakina)
||Used Within 24 Hours
||What Was Cut
||Was The Knife Clean
||How Much Is Affected
|Hot Kli Rishon
||Not Dvar Charif
|Hot Kli Rishon
||Not Ben Yomo
||Not Dvar Charif
|Hot Kli Rishon
||Not Ben Yomo
||Not Dvar Charif
|Hot Kli Sheni
||Not Dvar Charif
|Hot Kli Sheni
||Not Dvar Charif
|Hot Kli Sheni
||Not Ben Yomo
||Not Dvar Charif
|Hot Kli Sheni
||Not Ben Yomo
||Not Dvar Charif
||Onion (Dvar Charif)
||Up to 2cm/Entire Piece
- If a cold knife is used to cut a non-sharp food there's no transfer of taste between the food and the knife.
- If a cold knife is used to cut a sharp food there is a transfer of taste up to a thickness of a Etzbah and for Ashkenazim initially there is a complete transfer.
- If a knife is used to cut a non-sharp food that is in a Kli Rishon whether it has liquids or solids there is a complete taste transfer.
- If a knife is used to cut a non-sharp food that is in a Kli Sheni there is a major dispute but most hold that there is only a transfer of a peel.
- If a knife is used to cut a non-sharp food that is in a Kli Shelishi most say that there is a taste transfer of only a peel.
- If a knife is used to slaughter an animal according to Sephardim there is no transfer of taste at all, while according to Ashkenazim there is a transfer of taste up to a peel into food but not into the knife since utensils don't absorb as easily as food does.
- If a knife isn't used within 24 hours it doesn't transfer taste.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 105:2. The Rashba Torat Habayit 1b quotes someone who says that just like a kli sheni doesn't cause Bishul (Shabbat 40b) it doesn't cause any transference of taste. (This is also the opinion of the Rabbenu Yerucham in Iser Vheter n. 32.) The Rashba himself disagrees based on Chullin 8a and Chullin 8b. He held that even though a kli sheni doesn't cause bishul it does cause a transference of taste. The Tur 105:2 understands that the Rashba himself would say that a kli sheni could only transfer taste up to a klipah but himself argues that perhaps it transfers taste completely. The Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 105:2 cites the lenient opinion who says that it doesn't transfer taste as well as the Rashba that it transfers taste up to a klipah. He says initially one should be strict for the Rashba. Aruch Hashulchan 91:19 follows Shulchan Aruch. However, Shach 105:5 and Taz 105:4 cite the Maharshal who holds that a kli sheni can transfer taste completely and advise being strict. Badei Hashulchan 105:39 is strict unless there is a great loss in which case one can rely on Shulchan Aruch. Chachmat Adam 59:6 says that a klipah is necessary unless there is a loss.
- ↑ Based on the dispute cited above, the utensils that were made non-kosher because of a kli sheni should not require koshering according to the lenient opinion and should require koshering according to the Rashba. Shulchan Aurch 105:2 is initially strict for the Rashba. Rama YD 94:7 and 95:3 and Torat Chatat 33:1, 58 hold that a utensil that was absorbed something non-kosher in a kli sheni doesn't need to be koshered. However, Minchat Yakov 33:3, Rabbi Akiva Eiger 105:6, Badei Hashulchan 105:39, and Horah Brurah 105:28 write that one should be lenient to kosher something that became non-kosher because of a kli sheni unless it is a loss. Yabia Omer OC 3:24:1 implies this as well. His proof is from the Rif Pesachim 8b, Rosh Pesachim 2:7, Shulchan Aruch O.C. 451:5, Tur and Bet Yosef Y.D. 121:3-5 who say that a kli sheni requires koshering.
- ↑ The Rama cited by Shach 105:8 answers how a bug poured in hot liquid could transmit taste to the utensil it falls upon that it is treated as an iruy since it is mixed in with other hot liquids. Shaarei Deah Luria 99:1 p. 438 explains further that if it wasn't mixed in it would be considered a broken stream iruy which wouldn't forbid the utensil since it couldn't be mavliya umaflit k'echad. However, since it is mixed in with hot liquids it is considered an unbroken stream iruy and can be maliya umaflit k'echad.
- ↑ Taz 92:30 and Nekudat Hakesef there
- ↑ Maharil cited by Taz 92:30. See Mishna Brurah 318:45.
- ↑ Halacha Brurah 93:103
- ↑ Horah Brurah 105:29 writes that even though some are strict regarding a kli sheni there's no need to be strict regarding a kli shelishi. Shevet Halevi 8:181 agrees. Badei Hashulchan cites the Pri Chadash who is strict. See Chatom Sofer YD 95.
- ↑ Badei Hashulchan 94:101 citing Pri Chadash 68, Aruch Hashulchan end of 94, Chazon Ish OC 52. See however, Shaar Hatziyun 451:10 who distinguishes between kli sheni and kli shelishi.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 91:4, Shach 105:5. Rabbenu Tam's opinion (Tosfot Zevachim 95b) is that pouring from a Kli Rishon has the status of a Kli Rishon, while Rashbam holds it has the status of a Kli Sheni. Piskei Rid Pesachim 37b agrees with Rabbenu Tam.
- ↑ Badei Hashulchan 91:30
- ↑ Chachmat Adam 59:4 writes that based on the Shach 69:65 we always have sixty times the peel of a pot in the food cooking in it.
- ↑ Shach 105:5. See however Badei Hashulchan 92:184 that from Shach 92:38 it seems that a broken stream that was originally heated up by the fire is like a kli rishon. Though, Chazon Ish 9:6 cited by Badei Hashulchan maintains that a broken stream is never more than a klipah.
- ↑ Rama 95:3. Igrot Moshe YD 1:42:2 explains that the Rama would consider it to be mavliya umaflit kechad even when pouring hot water on cheese that was stuck onto a meat dish since the water needs to heat up the cheese and also enable its absorption into the dish. This is also evident from Chavot Daat 92:23.
- ↑ Shach 105:5
- ↑ Pri Megadim M"Z 92:26 raises the possibility that this definition of a stream even though it is on a cold surface is only if the stream is connected to a pot on the fire but not to a kli rishon off the fire. He concludes that one shouldn't be lenient even if it is off the fire.
- ↑ Trumat Hadeshen 181 and Rama 92:7. Chavot Daat 92:23 writes that even though the stream doesn't cool down since it isn't broken it doesn't cook (or boleh umaflit kechad) since it is on a cold surface.
- ↑ Trumat Hadeshen 181 and Rama 92:7. The Pri Megadim M"Z 92:26 explains that even though usually a broken stream can transfer taste up to a peel, since the stream ran along a cold surface if it is broken it is certainly considered a kli sheni. Badei Hashulchan 92:147 agrees.
- ↑ Badei Hashulchan 106:21 outlines three approaches as to why the food while in the air is still considered a kli rishon. 1) According to the Maharshal (Yam Shel Shlomo Gid Hanesheh 44, Kol Habasar 75) any solid food (Gush) is considered a kli rishon. 2) Solid food that is in the air that didn't land is considered a kli rishon.(Chazon Ish 9:5) 3) Any food that is in the air that didn't land is considered a kli rishon. (Shach 105:5)
- ↑ Shach 105:7 citing Darkei Moshe 105:4 clarifies that a hot food that is placed on a plate or bowl is considered iruy while it is being placed down. However, after it settles it is considered a kli sheni.
- ↑ Pesachim 74a. Mishna Brurah 451:68 clarifies that this entire topic is specifically relevant to metal utensils and not other materials.
- ↑ Pesachim 74a
- ↑ Rabbenu Peretz, Rashba, and Tosfot.
- Rabbenu Perek cited by Tur 94:1 holds that the spoon absorbs the taste of the food throughout the spoon even though it was only dipped in the food partially. That is based on Cham Miksato Cham Kulo. However, other rishonim argue that the spoon only possibly absorb the taste of the food up to the point that it was dipped in the food. Smak 213 cites the dispute. Ran Pesachim 30b cites the dispute and seems to be lenient. Gra 121:17 quotes Ran as lenient. Baal Hatrumah 49 and Shaarei Dura 85 cited by Bet Yosef 94:1 are lenient. Isur Vheter 57:61 is lenient. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 94:1, Rama, and Shach 94:3 all hold leniently like the Sefer Hatrumah and Smak unlike Rabbenu Peretz.
- Additionally, there is a dispute between the Rashba (Torat Habayit 38a) and Tur YD 121:6 about a utensil that was only used for forbidden food on part of the utensil if one can do a hechsher on that part alone. The Rashba holds it needs hechsher on the entire utensil as an application of Cham Miksato Cham Kulo. However, the Tur YD 121:6 argues that hechsher can be done in the manner that the absorption entered (kbolo kach polto); therefore it is sufficient to do hechser on the part that absorbed the food. It seems to be a dispute between the Shulchan Aruch and Rama as to the halacha. Shulchan Aruch follows the Rashba, while the Rama follows the Tur. Pri Chadash YD 121:15 holds like the Tur and Rama. Yeyerim 52 agrees with the Tur. Tosfot Zevachim 96b seems to agree with the Rashba (Chok Natan Zevachim ad loc.) The Shach 121:17 cites the opinion of the Raah (Bedek Habayit 37b) as compromise opinion. The Raah holds that hagalah doesn't work on part of a utensil, while libun does.
- ↑ Tur, Yereyim, Sefer Hatrumah, Smak, Shaarei Dura, Isur Vheter cited in the previous footnote.
- As an extreme approach, the Maharam Mintz holds that Cham Miksato only means that we treat the entire utensil as though it is hot and can absorb a forbidden taste on the other side of the utensil than the one that is cooking. However, it doesn't mean that internally the utensil spreads the tastes it absorbed. Shach 121:17 ultimately accepts that opinion. Pitchei Teshuva 94:1 cites Solet Lmincha 85:1 who agrees.
- The Magen Avraham 451:24 holds that if the taste goes in one part we're concerned that it spread throughout the utensil. Therefore, if one used it on any part of the utensil the forbidden taste can be transferred. However, if one did a hechsher on one side of the utensil and then one uses that side, there is not going to be a transfer of the forbidden taste from the other side exiting. If one did a hechsher on one side of the utensil and used another side, there is going to be a transfer of the forbidden taste even if that side wasn't used for the forbidden taste to begin with since the taste might have traveled in the utensil. Mishna Brurah 451:68 mentions this approach.
- ↑ Shach 94:3, 121:17
- ↑ Magen Avraham 451:24, Peleti 94:3, Mishna Brurah 451:68, 69, Chachmat Adam 74:11, Shulchan Aruch Harav (Piskei Admor Hazaken Bisur Vheter 94:2)
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 94:1, Rama, Shach 94:3, Pri Chadash 94:3, Chachmat Adam 46:6, and Badei Hashulchan 94:15.
- Chanan in kelim (YD 98:4). This dispute does not affect the dispute regarding chanan in kelim. The above dispute is regarding where the transfer of the taste exists, while chanan in kelim effects the other tastes absorbed in the walls becoming forbidden and becoming necessary to nullify.
- ↑ Badei Hashulchan 94:9, 14 based on based on Pri Megadim M"Z 94:1 s.v. heneh, Shach 69:64, Chavot Daat, Rabbi Akiva Eiger (OC MA 451:24), Zivchei Tzedek 94:11. Chachmat Adam disagrees. Isur Vheter 57:61 seems to be lenient.
- ↑ Isur Vheter 37:2, 57:61, Shach 121:17, Gra 94:6, and Badei Hashulchan 94:15
- ↑ Peleti 94:1, Pri Chadash 121:15, Chavot Daat 94:1. Pri Megadim MZ 94:1 s.v. vda cites this from the Pri Chadash 121:15 and Bet Lechem Yehuda 11.
- ↑ Chachmat Adam 46:6, Badei Hashulchan 94:4 citing Chatom Sofer 82 and Yad Yehuda. Zivchei Tzedek 121:29 cites the Pri Chadash but in 94:10 he cites the dispute and writes that the primary opinion is that of the Chachmat Adam.
- ↑ Rashba in Mishmeret Habayit 4:4 37b, Shach 121:16, Zivchei Tzedek 121:28
- ↑ Rama 121:6, Gra 121:17, Shach 121:17, Pri Chadash 121:15 following the Tur
- ↑ Chachmat Adam 74:11 writes that after the fact if one used the spot that you did you the hechsher on, that doesn't create a transfer of the forbidden taste in the other half to come out into the kosher food. But if one used the other side of the utensil that didn't have a hechsher even though it wasn't originally used for the forbidden taste, we are concerned for the Magen Avraham 451:24 who is strict and would forbid the food. If it was a large loss and there were other factors to be lenient one can rely upon the Shach and Pri Chadash who are lenient. Mishna Brurah 451:69 seems to be lenient after the fact to rely on the Rama that hechsher on part of the utensil works for all of it and the food is kosher even when one used the other side of the utensil. Similarly, Aruch Hashulchan YD 121:24 is also lenient after the fact if one only did a partial hechsher it worked like the Rama. Yet, in Aruch Hashulchan OC 451:22 he cites the Magen Avraham that after the fact the partial hechsher only worked for the part had the hechsher and not the other side.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 121:6, Taz 121:7 following the Rashba. For other reasons, the Magen Avraham 451:24 holds that the absorptions can spread within the utensil by being absorbed in from one spot but can't be extracted from one spot. Therefore, in terms of hechsher he accepts the Shulchan Aruch. Peleti 94:3 and Chachmat Adam 74:11 agree. Zichei Tzedek 121:27 writes that Shulchan Aruch is concerned for the Rashba and Rabbenu Peretz but after the fat if there's a large loss one can follow the opinion that partial hechsher works.
- ↑ Mishna Brurah 451:69
- ↑ Magen Avraham OC 451:24 holds that it does transfer from one utensil to the other if they are attached, while Rabbi Akiva Eiger 451:24 disagrees. Radvaz teshuva 6:2308, Maharsham 3:112, and Darkei Teshuva YD 92:22 are strict like the Magen Avraham. Mor Ukesiya end of 451, Shaarei Hamesuyanim Bhalacha 116:10, and R' Elyashiv (Hagadah Shel Pesach p. 32, Kovetz Teshuvot 3:81) are lenient. These are all cited by Ohel Yakov Kashrut Lpesach p. 44. Dirshu 451:62 also cites the Chatom Sofer OC 130 and Minchat Yitzchak 5:81:11 as being lenient. It also cites Chut Shani Pesach 10:13 as being strict.
- ↑ Taz 105:4
- ↑ Shach 105:5
- ↑ Chavot Daat 92:23
- ↑ Chavot Daat 92:23 citing Minchat Yakov 61:45
- ↑ Magen Avraham 318:45
- ↑ Ateret Moshe Aharon p. 242 provides three examples of what it means that something doesn't mavliya umaflit k'eched.
- ↑ Pri Megadim M”Z 105:4 writes using a kli rishon even if it isn’t a yad soledet bo it is an issue even after the fact. That’s the implication of Torat Chatat 23:3 and 33:1. Badei Hashulchan 105:2 s.v. lechatchila cites the Pri Megadim and seems to agree.
- ↑ Pri Megadim M”Z 105:4 writes that the Shach and Taz conclude that if a kli sheni isn’t yad soledet bo it doesn't make something forbidden at all after the fact. But initially it is an issue up to a klipah. Badei Hashulchan 105:2 s.v. lechatchila cites the Pri Megadim and seems to agree.
- ↑ Shach 105:5 says initially we're strict for the Rashba and Tur who say kli sheni is boleh even though it is not yad soledet bo. See above footnotes which also include various sources that are strict for non-soledet bo infusions of taste. However, Rav Mordechai Willig (Am Mordechai on S"A p. 89) elaborates on the idea that it is impossible for there to be a transfer of taste without two entities involved to be yad soledet bo.
- ↑ Pitchei Teshuva 105:8 cites the Chamudei Doniel that posits that if a cold piece fell on top of a hot piece it doesn't absorb the taste of the bottom piece immediately. Once it was left there for a little bit then it becomes forbidden. Maharsham 2:20 infers from Radvaz 1:223 that he accepts the Chamudei Doniel. Yet, he writes that he would only rely on the Chamudei Doniel if it was a question of rabbinic nature and there was another factor to rely upon. Darkei Halacha 94:4 quotes Even Shetiya YD 42 who limits the Chamudei Doniel two solids touching or a kli rishon off the fire but not for a spoon that was placed in a hot pot and removed immediately. Harei Besamim 3:56 similarly makes limitations on the Chamudei Doniel.
- ↑ Ezer Lshulchan p. 82
- ↑ Chazon Ish YD 22:6, Taz 94:15, Badei Hashulchan 94:105. See, however, Shach 94:32 who seems to have another approach in which most foods can go into a utensil to an Eztbah but cheese is unique and doesn't go into utensils more than a peel. Chazon Ish disagrees and thinks that there's no reason or source to distinguish between foods and rather a utensil is hard and can't absorb more than a peel with dry heat.
- ↑ Badei Hashulchan 94:106. Badei Hashulchan Biurim s.v. im proves this from the Rama 98:4. See Chazon Ish YD 22:7 s.v. vadayin who isn't certain about this halacha.
- ↑ There are three opinions of how far roasting can transfer taste. The Rashba thinks that essentially it could only transfer up to the thickness of a peel. But he is strict for the opinion of Tosfot for any question of Biblical nature. Tosfot Chullin 99b s.v. ad and Rosh Chullin 7:24 hold that it could transfer up to the thickness of a netila, which is an Etzbah. Lastly, the Ri Halavan (cited by) holds that roasting can transfer taste completely just like cooking. Shulchan Aruch follows the Rashba. Maharshal follows the Ri Halavan but the Shach disagrees.
- ↑ Taz 94:15 implies this but the Pri Megadim vehemently argues that this is an incorrect reading of Shulchan Aruch. Nonetheless, the Badei Hashulchan 94:105 based on Chazon Ish 22:6 rules like the implication of the Taz that food roasted on a utensil only enters the utensil up to a peel. See however, Shulchan Aruch 92:5.
- ↑ Taz 105:14 clarifies that ein beluah blo rotev means that the other food isn't affected at all even the width of a peel.
- ↑ The Rashba cited by Shulchan Aruch 105:7 holds that taste absorbed in a food can't impart taste with roasting unless it is fatty. Maharshal in Yam Shel Shlomo Chullin 7:45 and Isur Vheter LMaharshal siman 37 writes that ein beluah yotzei blo rotev only applies to tata gavar or two pieces next to one another but it doesn't apply to tzeli or melicha. He explains that he is following the Ri Halavan that tzeli and melicha transfer taste completely just like cooking. Shach 105:18 quotes the Maharshal and disagrees.
- ↑ Shach 105:17-18 is lenient for an absorbed forbidden taste to not assume that all foods are fatty since anyway the question of whether a fatty absorption spreads from one food to another is a dispute between the Rashba and Maharam.
- ↑ Chavot Daat is lenient but most achronim are strict (Ezer Lshulchan p. 82). The Chavot Daat 96:6 is lenient to hold that the taste absorbed in a food doesn't transfer to a utensil. He is only strict if it is a fatty absorption. Pri Megadim MZ 447:13 has a unresolved inquiry about the point of the Chavot Daat. Bet Shlomo YD 1:168 is strict like the Magen Avraham unlike the Chavot Daat.
- ↑ Taz 105:16
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch 94:8, Rama 105:7, Shach 105:23, 94:33, Horah Brurah 105:71. Bet Yosef 95:1 s.v. masati writes that roasting on a utensil transfers a Etzbah, but see Shach 94:9.
- ↑ Rama 92:8, Shulchan Aruch 105:7
- ↑ Ezer Lshulchan p. 82
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 94:7. Shach 94:27 has two approaches as to why a dairy knife can forbid a piece of meat completely if it is simply like dry heat which can at most infuse taste up to a Etzbah. He answers that the pressure of the knife combines with the heat to infuse taste throughout the piece. Alternatively, we're assuming that the knife is dirty and that fatty residue can be infused throughout the meat. Rabbi Akiva Eiger 94:7 points out that the Rashba Torat Habayit 34a holds that the halacha of cutting with a knife in a kli rishon is like using a knife to cut a cold dvar charif.
- ↑ Horah Brurah 94:50. It is also implied by Badei Hashulchan 94:89.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch 94:7, Badei Hashulchan 94:89
- ↑ Torat Chatat 61:13, Rabbi Akiva Eiger 94:7, Aruch Hashulchan 94:31, Horah Brurah 94:52, Madanei Hashulchan 94:89.
- ↑ Badei Hashulchan (Biurim 94:7 s.v. habasar) argues with Rabbi Akiva Eiger and says that even though the Torat Chatat ruled that a Kli Sheni has no infusion of taste at all we're concerned with the pressure of the knife together with a kli sheni there's a small infusion of taste up to a peel. This is the opinion of the Gra 94:26 and Badei Hashulchan proceeds to show that the Rama retracted from his opinion in the Torat Chatat.
- ↑ Rama 94:7
- ↑ Rabbi Akiva Eiger 94:7. Here the argument of the Badei Hashulchan (Biurim 94:7 s.v. habasar) doesn't apply.
- ↑ Rama 94:7
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 96:1 quotes one opinion who says that even if the knife isn't Ben Yomo and is clean still it has an effect of taste up to a netila. The Rama cites another opinion that dvar charif in fact effects the food completely and we're strict for the opinion initially. See Dvar Charif for all of the opinions.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 96:5. Horah Brurah 96:49 writes that if the knife were clean it wouldn't even need to be washed. Madanei Hashulchan 96:76 implies otherwise. See also Badei Hashulchan 96:70.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 96:5. Shach 96:21 explains that washing off the cucumber doesn't work since it is soft and moist and the fat upon it doesn't come off by washing it. Badei Hashulchan 96:69 cites another reason but sides with the Shach. Shach also writes that even if the knife is dirty scrape off a layer to clean the cucumber is sufficient. Badei Hashulchan 96:70 agrees and isn't certain if the knife is clean but there wasn't neytza, sticking the knife into the ground, whether the cucumber needs to be scraped or not. Perhaps even for a clean knife we're concerned that there's a little residue left on it.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 96:5
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 96:1. In the rishonim there are three opinions of how far a sharp food transfers taste when cut. Some say it transfers taste up to a peel (Rosh Chullin 8:31), some say up to a Etzbah (Raavad cited by Torat Habayit Haaruch 4a), and some say completely (Rashba Torat Habayit Hakatzar 4a).
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch YD 94:7. The Bet Yosef asks why there is a complete transfer if a Kli Rishon could transfer taste from a utensil to a food up to a peel. He answers that a knife has the ability to transfer more taste and instead of it only going up to a peel, it transfers completely. The Bet Yosef gives another answer that acknowledges that the knife doesn't transfer taste completely unless there is fat on the knife. Also, the Shach has a third answer which would yield the same position about knives in a Kli Rishon. Nonetheless, the poskim are strict for the first answer of the Bet Yosef alone (Badei Hashulchan 94:76 citing Pri Megadim).
- Pri Chadash 94:23 argues that there is an absorption up to a Etzbah. His proof is the Rashba Chullin 111b who states that the Raavad compared cutting with a hot knife non-sharp foods to cutting a sharp food with a cold knife and both transfer taste up to a Etzbah.
- ↑ In the poskim there are three possible approaches:
- The Torat Chatat 61 holds that there is no transfer of taste in a Kli Sheni even if there is also pressure of a knife. There is only a transfer from the knife when it is dirty with fat left on it. This is cited by Rabbi Akiva Eiger 94:9.
- The Rama 94:7 holds that there is a transfer of taste up to a peel when the pressure of a knife is used in conjunction of a Kli Sheni. His proof is the Gemara Chullin 8b that the pressure of a knife together with the temperature of an animal's neck at the time of slaughtering cause a transfer of a peel. The Gra 94:27-8 cites this proof.
- The Maharshal (Chullin 7:44 and 8:71) holds that there is a complete transfer of taste for two reasons. 1) He holds that generally a kli sheni causes a complete taste transfer. 2) He holds that a solid item from a kli rishon isn't considered a kli sheni, it is still considered a kli rishon in which case it causes a complete taste transfer. Taz 94:14 accepts the first argument and the second argument he generally doesn't hold of except for when there's pressure of a knife.
- ↑ The Chatom Sofer 95 writes that we treat a kli shelishi like a kli sheni, while the Pitchei Teshuva 94:7 writes that we treat it more lenient. Rama 94:7 writes that a kli sheni with pressure of a knife only requires a peel.
- ↑ If a person slaughters a kosher animal with a non-kosher knife there is a dispute in Chullin 8b whether the meat absorbs non-kosher taste. One opinion is that it doesn't and simply needs to be washed, while the other opinion is that it transfers a taste up to a peel. Ashkenazim follow the opinion that there is a transfer of taste up to a peel (Rama 10:1, Shach 10:9), while Sephardim follow the opinion that the meat can be washed. On the other hand, if a person slaughtered a non-kosher animal with a kosher knife the gemara has another dispute whether the knife becomes non-kosher but the halacha according to everyone is that the knife remains kosher (Shulchan Aruch YD 10:3). Rashi Chullin 8b s.v. vhilchata explains that the reason to be more strict on food than the knife is that food absorbs more easily than utensils.
- ↑ Shulchan Aruch 94:7