Transferring Taste: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Cham Miksato Cham Kulo
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
==Cham Miksato Cham Kulo== | ==Cham Miksato Cham Kulo== | ||
#If a 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. | #If a 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. | ||
##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. 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. Baal Hatrumah 49 and Shaarei Dura 85 cited by Bet Yosef 94:1 are lenient. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 94:1, Rama, and Shach 94:3 all hold leniently like the Sefer Hatrumah and Smak unlike Rabbenu Peretz. | ##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. 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. 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. | ||
## | ## 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. | ##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. | ||
#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. That's the opinion of the 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). Chachmat Adam disagrees. (Isur Vheter 57:61 seems to be lenient.) | |||
# If the heat was dry heat i.e. it wasn't cooking, such as roasting, then it spreads throughout the kli. This is the opinion of the Isur Vheter 37:2, 57:61, Shach 121:17, Gra 94:6, and Badei Hashulchan 94:15. | |||
# Does Cham Miksato Cham Kulo transfer from one utensil to another if they are attached? 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. | # Does Cham Miksato Cham Kulo transfer from one utensil to another if they are attached? 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. | ||
# 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. | # 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. | ||
==Mavliya Umaflit K'echad== | ==Mavliya Umaflit K'echad== | ||
# According to the Taz a kli sheni can be mavliya or maflit but not both simultaneously.<ref>Taz 105:4</ref> | # According to the Taz a kli sheni can be mavliya or maflit but not both simultaneously.<ref>Taz 105:4</ref> | ||
