Transferring Taste: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Iruy Shenifsak Hakiluach
(→Iruy) |
|||
| (6 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. 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 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. Ritva Pesachim 40b s.v. ha also holds that it transfers tastes up to a klipah. 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 23: | Line 23: | ||
#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> | ||
#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> | ||
==Iruy Shenifsak Hakiluach== | |||
#A broken stream of hot liquid (Heb. עירוי שנפסק הקילוח; trans. ''iruy sh'nifsak hakiluach'') poured from a kli rishon has the ability to transfer taste up to the thickness of a peel. Since the stream is broken it only has 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 (see [[#Mavliya Umaflit K'echad|further]] for this practically).<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 YD 9:6 cited by Badei Hashulchan maintains that a broken stream is never more than a klipah. Also, although the opinion of the Rama as explained by the Chazon Ish is that iruy shenifsak hakiluach is like a kli sheni and has no impact, Badei Hashulchan 91:20 is strict and holds like the Shach.</ref> | |||
#If hot liquids overflow from a pot on the fire and stream along a surface until it touches something but it is a broken stream 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> | |||
==Cham Miksato Cham Kulo== | ==Cham Miksato Cham Kulo== | ||
| Line 121: | Line 124: | ||
===Absorbed Forbidden Tastes in Food=== | ===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<ref>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.</ref> unless the food that absorbed the taste is fatty.<ref>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.</ref> Even Ashkenazim agree that in this case we don't assume that all foods might be fatty.<ref>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.</ref> | #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<ref>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.</ref> unless the food that absorbed the taste is fatty.<ref>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.</ref> Even Ashkenazim agree that in this case we don't assume that all foods might be fatty.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
##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.<ref>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.</ref> | ##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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
#A kosher food that absorbed non-kosher tastes which was then roasted without liquids on a kosher utensil the utensil remains kosher.<ref>Taz 105:16</ref> | #A kosher food that absorbed non-kosher tastes which was then roasted without liquids on a kosher utensil the utensil remains kosher.<ref>Taz 105:16</ref> | ||
| Line 212: | Line 215: | ||
#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.<ref>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.</ref> | #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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
#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.<ref>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.</ref> | #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.<ref>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.</ref> | ||
#If a knife isn't used within 24 hours it doesn't transfer taste.<ref>Shulchan Aruch 94:7</ref> | #If a knife isn't used within 24 hours it doesn't transfer taste.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 94:7</ref> | ||
===Knife was Cold=== | |||
#If a non-kosher knife is used to cut a non-dvar charif and it is cold, if the knife is clean then the food is kosher. If the knife isn't clean then the food needs to be washed off. If the food is soft it needs to be scrubbed thoroughly to remove all of the taste it might have absorbed.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 96:5, Badei Hashulchan 96:69 based on Shach</ref> Practically, if you buy a fruit platter or cut watermelon from a supermarket you can assume that they used a clean knife or a knife that is designated for fruit. However, otherwise you can't assume a knife is clean.<ref>[https://jewishaction.com/food/kashrut/cut-fruit-at-the-office/ Rabbi Gersten (OU's Jewish Action Winter 2012)]. If the knife was dirty but was used to cut many fruits which were not dvar charif then theoretically nullification is relevant (Badei Hashulchan 96:65 citing Yad Yehuda). However, if it is possible to wash each one then you should do so because washing each one is a dvar sheyesh lo matirin (Badei Hashulchan 96:65).</ref> | |||
# If a non-kosher knife is used to many lemons and it is impossible to tell which was cut first and which last, then all are permitted because the non-kosher knife only transfers taste to the first lemon and afterwards its taste is mitigated by the taste of the lemon. The first lemon is nullified by the others.<ref>Rama Y.D. 96:4, Badei Hashulchan 96:63</ref> | |||
==Salting== | |||
# Kosher and non-kosher food which were salted together or if there's an interaction between a kosher food and non-kosher food through the medium of salt there could be a transfer of taste up to a peel, klipah.<ref>Gemara Pesachim 75a, Chullin 112a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 91:5</ref> | |||
# A food that is salted to taste good is not sufficient salt to transfer taste. Only if there is a lot of salt, the amount necessary to [[kasher meat]], is that considered enough salt to transfer taste.<ref>Rashi Chullin 112a s.v. deino says that only if the meat is salted so much that it is meant to be preserved that way is it considered enough to transfer taste. See Rashi Pesachim 76a s.v. shein who has a stricter definition. Tosfot 112a s.v. hani quote Rav Yakov Yisrael as espousing the view that if the salt isn't enough to make the meat processed like a hide it isn't enough. Tosfot then quote Rabbenu Tam who thinks that the amount of salt depends on the amound necessary to kasher meat. He proves this from Menachot 21a and Bahag. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 91:5 rules like Rabbenu Tam since it is the consensus of rishonim including the Rosh, Mordechai, Ran, Rabbenu Yerucham, and Rashba.</ref> Today we're not experts in how much salt that is,<ref>Rama 91:5</ref> but if one could taste that there's salt but it isn't a lot of salt then it is certainly not enough to transfer taste.<ref>Yad Yehuda cited by Darkei Teshuva 91:43</ref> | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category: Kashrut]] | [[Category: Kashrut]] | ||
