Transferring Taste: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical"
m (grammar) |
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Kli Sheni== | ==Kli Sheni== | ||
#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.<ref>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.</ref> | #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.<ref>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. Ritva Chullin 104b s.v. sof agrees. 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.</ref> | ||
#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.<ref>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.</ref> | #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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Iruy== | ==Iruy== | ||
#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.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 91:4, Shach 105:5</ref> The thickness of a peel is the amount that it could be peeled at one time.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 91:30</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | #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.<ref>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.</ref> The thickness of a peel is the amount that it could be peeled at one time.<ref>Badei Hashulchan 91:30</ref> 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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
#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.<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>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. </ref> 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.<ref>Shach 105:5</ref> | #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.<ref>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.</ref> 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.<ref>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. </ref> 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.<ref>Shach 105:5</ref> | ||
#If an unbroken stream of hot liquids overflow from a pot on the fire<ref>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.</ref> and go along a surface until it touches something it is considered an unbroken pour to transfer taste up to a peel.<ref>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.</ref> If the stream is broken it is considered a kli sheni.<ref>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.</ref> | #If an unbroken stream of hot liquids overflow from a pot on the fire<ref>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.</ref> and go along a surface until it touches something it is considered an unbroken pour to transfer taste up to a peel.<ref>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.</ref> If the stream is broken it is considered a kli sheni.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
===Intrinsically Forbidden=== | ===Intrinsically Forbidden=== | ||
#Roasting something forbidden together with something permitted will make the permitted thing forbidden up to the thickness of a [[Etzbah]] where they touched.<ref>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 | #Roasting something forbidden together with something permitted will make the permitted thing forbidden up to the thickness of a [[Etzbah]] where they touched.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
#A non-kosher food that was roasted on a kosher utensil the utensil absorbs up to a peel.<ref>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.</ref> | #A non-kosher food that was roasted on a kosher utensil the utensil absorbs up to a peel.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
