Transferring Taste: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Cham Miksato Cham Kulo
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# 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. <ref>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)</ref> As it is being placed down on the plate or bowl that is considered iruy. After it settles it is considered a kli sheni.<ref>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.</ref> | # 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. <ref>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)</ref> As it is being placed down on the plate or bowl that is considered iruy. After it settles it is considered a kli sheni.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
==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. One school of rishonim take the concept of ''Cham Miksato Cham Kulo'',<ref>Pesachim 74a</ref> 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.<ref>Rabbenu Peretz, Rashba, and Tosfot. | #If a metal<ref>Pesachim 74a. Mishna Brurah 451:68 clarifies that this entire topic is specifically relevant to metal utensils and not other materials.</ref> 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'',<ref>Pesachim 74a</ref> 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.<ref>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. | *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.</ref> Still many others have a compromise opinions.<Ref>Tur, Yereyim, Sefer Hatrumah, Smak, Shaarei Dura, Isur Vheter cited in the previous footnote. | *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.</ref> Still many others have a compromise opinions.<Ref>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. | * 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.</ref> The halacha is explained below. | *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.</ref> 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.<ref>Shach 94:3, 121:17</ref> | # 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.<ref>Shach 94:3, 121:17</ref> However, most authorities hold that there are absorptions in the other side of the utensil and forbid the food.<ref>Magen Avraham 451:24, Peleti 94:3, Mishna Brurah 451:68, 69, Chachmat Adam 74:11, [https://chabadlibrary.org/books/chasidim/piskey-admur-hazaken/22/1.htm Shulchan Aruch Harav (Piskei Admor Hazaken Bisur Vheter 94:2)]</ref> 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.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 94:1, Rama, Shach 94:3, Pri Chadash 94:3, and Badei Hashulchan 94:15. | # 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.<ref>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.</ref> | * 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.</ref> 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.<ref> 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.</ref> | #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.<ref> 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.</ref> | ||
# If the heat was dry heat i.e. it wasn't cooking, such as roasting, then it spreads throughout the kli.<ref> Isur Vheter 37:2, 57:61, Shach 121:17, Gra 94:6, and Badei Hashulchan 94:15</ref> | # If the heat was dry heat i.e. it wasn't cooking, such as roasting, then it spreads throughout the kli.<ref> Isur Vheter 37:2, 57:61, Shach 121:17, Gra 94:6, and Badei Hashulchan 94:15</ref> | ||
===Partial Hechsher=== | |||
# 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.<ref>Rama 121:6, Gra 121:17, Shach 121:17, Pri Chadash 121:15 following the Tur</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> Sephardim certainly hold that one should kasher the entire utensil.<ref>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.</ref> | |||
# 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.<ref>Mishna Brurah 451:69</ref> | |||
===Multi-part Utensils=== | |||
# Does Cham Miksato Cham Kulo transfer from one utensil to another if they are attached? There is a large dispute about this point. <ref>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.</ref> | # Does Cham Miksato Cham Kulo transfer from one utensil to another if they are attached? There is a large dispute about this point. <ref>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.</ref> | ||
