Kashering Kaylim for Pesach and All Year Round Part I

Dear Halachaboy: Can I kasher my barbecue for pesach use?

 

Of course before one can kasher something, all surface dirt and grime must be removed. Once you are left with a clean utensil we are still worried flavor was infused into the utensil and it is this flavor we are discussing.

 

The Mishna, Avodah Zarah 75b, states an important principle regarding kashering: if one wants to kasher utensils that were used for non-kosher food, the method of kashering depends on the normal use of that utensil.  A utensil whose contact with non-kosher food is normally through a liquid medium (cooking) is kashered by hagalah (placing the utensil in boiling water). A utensil whose exposure to heat is normally without a liquid medium is kashered through libun (direct fire). (Whether the item could withstand the heat is a different story- and you need to ask your local chemist).The Gemara, Avodah Zarah 76b, describes this principle as k'bol'o kach polto, the manner in which the non-kosher food enters the utensil is the same manner in which it is expelled. The Gemara, Pesachim 30b, uses the term k'bol'o kach polto to describe the methods of kashering utensils for Pesach that were previously used for chametz.

Nevertheless, the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 76a, provides a leniency regarding kashering that may be applicable to Pesach. The Gemara states that if the item that was absorbed into the utensil was permissible at the time of its absorption and later became prohibited while already absorbed in the utensil, one may kasher the utensil through hagalah (boiling water) even if the manner of absorption was through a non-liquid medium. This principle is known as heteirah balah (it was absorbed as a permissible item).

There is a dispute among the Rishonim regarding the applicability of the heteirah balah principle to Pesach. Tosafot, Pesachim 30b, note that the absorption of chametz prior to Pesach might be considered a form of heteirah balah, (since at the time of absorption chametz is not prohibited) and therefore, utensils can be kashered through boiling water even if they absorbed chametz directly. However, many Rishonim disagree with the premise that chametz is considered heteirah balah. Ramban explains that vis-א-vis Pesach, chametz is never considered a permissible item. Although, it is permissible to eat chametz throughout the year, the chametz status always exists. The principle of heteirah balah only applies to an item that undergoes a status change from being completely permissible to becoming prohibited while it is absorbed in the utensil. [The Gemara's example of heteirah balah is the meat of a korban that is absorbed into a utensil and while it is in the utensil becomes notar (leftover meat), which is prohibited.] Bread even during the year is called Chametz,however a Karbon isn't called Nosar until after the permited time has passed. Therefore, there are no grounds to perform hagalah on a utensil that absorbed chametz through a non-liquid medium.

Shulchan Aruch codifies the opinion of Ramban that one must use direct fire to remove chametz that was absorbed through a non-liquid medium. Nevertheless, Mishna Berurah notes that the opinion that chametz is considered heteirah balah should not be discounted completely and may be used in situations where there are other reasons to permit hagalah.

 

As always ask a Rav and your local Fireman for assistance when trying to apply these halachos.

(Quoted from Rav Flug of YuTorah.org)

Meat and Fish Part III

There is one more issue we need to discuss and that is the issue of milsa avidah l'ta'amah. The gemara says that anything that is Milsa avidah l'ta'amah- literally things that are put into food for there taste-are not batul. Meaning, if a certain ingredient was placed into food for taste, even if there is 60 times that ingredient it is not automatically batul.

 

In our case of Worcestershire sauce it stands to reason that they only but anchovies into the sauce because anchovies add the desired flavor and thus even though some Worcestershire sauces have less than 1/60th anchovies shouldn't a "F"  still be required on the kashrus symbol?

 

Rav Eitan Schnall qouting Rav Schechter explains that the rule of Milsa avidah l'ta'amah only eliminates the heter of 1/60th if you can taste it, but if a chef says that he can't taste it then it could still be batul. This logic makes a lot of sense, the concept of bitul is not hokus-pokus, it works within reality, thus if the taste still exists, even if less than 1/60th we can't go and say it doesn't. However, if something was put in for taste and we can verify that it can't be tasted the concept of bitul would apply again,

 

According to Rav Dovid Cohen, of the Chicago Rabbinical Council, in reality there is only  the smallest amount of fish molecules in Worcestershire sauce that for sure you don't taste it. However, the companies put the anchovies into the sauce because any self respecting chef only uses Worcestershire sauce with anchovies. So the flavor comes from some artificial flavoring and they put in enough to get it on the ingredient list, but since there is no taste of anchovies and the anchovies are less than 1/60th, one is allowed to use with meat.

Fish and Meat Part II

In general if an ounce of non kosher food becomes absorbed in sixty ounces of kosher food we assume that the entire mixture is kosher. We require sixty times the forbidden food to nullify it because the taste of the forbidden food is not discernible when mixed with sixty times its volume. Although forbidden foods may become nullified in sixty times their volume, one may not initially nullify a forbidden food by adding more permitted food. This principle is known as "ein mivatlin issur lechatchila".
 
Can we apply this rule to foods which are prohibited for sakana, danger, also?
 
a. The Taz writes that dangerous foods cannot become nullified in sixty times their volume. The logic for this view is that nullification only works to neutralize taste but does nothing to mitigate potential danger in food. Furthermore, Chazal teach us that chamira sakanta m'issura (we must treat dangerous foods with more caution than we treat halachically prohibited foods).
 
b. The Shach disagrees with the Taz. The Shach argues that chamira sakanta m'issura is a principle that is limited to a case of doubt, but would not extend to the laws of bittul. Pitchei Teshuvah points out that according to the Chatam Sofer fish and meat may have lost its status as a dangerous food (because modern medicine does not recognize any problem with it) and may now have the status of forbidden food (because the rabbis decreed not to mix the two). As such the rules governing fish and meat should certainly be the same as the rules governing other prohibited foods, and should therefore become nullified in sixty times their volume. 
 
One very common practical application of the above dispute is the issue of Worcestershire Sauce, which is a steak sauce with fish ingredients. Lea & Perrin's Worcestershire Sauce, which is certified by the OU, has the following ingredient list:
INGREDIENTS:  Prepared From All Natural Ingredients: Water, Vinegar, Molasses, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Anchovies, Hydrogarlic, Clove, Chili Peppers, Natural Flavorings And Shallots.
 
Rav Eitan Schnall (born and raised in West Hempstead) in a shiur on this issue qouted Rav Schechter, who guides the policies of the OU, ruled that the OU should label any sauce that contains more than 1.67% (1/60th) fish with an OU Fish to indicate that it should not be eaten with meat. If, however, the sauce is composed of less than 1.67% fish no labeling is required. Rav Schechter ruled leniently in this issue due to a safek sefika. First, perhaps the Magen Avraham (who we mentioned last week) who says the whole issue of fish and meat doesn't apply anymore is correct, and even if the prohibition still applies perhaps the Shach is right that foods prohibited on account of danger may be nullified.In regards to Lea& Perrin's sauce, there is more than 1/67% anchovie and thus bears an OU- F.

Editors' note: Star-K agrees with the OU ruling on this issue. However, the OK has a policy of putting OK-F even if less than 1/60th, for those that want to be machmir, and this can be seen on Tropicana with Omega-3.

Fish and Meat

Dear Halachaboy,
 
Q : I know there is a prohibition of eating fish and meat. What exactly are the parameters of this prohibition and how far does it extend? For example, can I broil a salmon and steak in the same oven if both are uncovered but not touching?
 
A: I love getting questions, they keep me going through these dark days of winter (please keep the coming at thehalachaboy@gmail.com ).
 
We all know that Torah frowns on things that are hazardous to you health (Vnishmartim Moad L'Nofshosechem- Hashem exhorts us to be exceedingly careful with our souls and bodies). This prohibition extends to anything that is potentially hazardous. I have heard Rav Willig, from YU, say that one who skis or plays hockey might be violating this prohibition. Further, everyone agrees that smoking cigarettes is a clear violation of this prohibition.
 
The Gemara in Pesachim says that while the Torah does not forbid eating fish and meat together, it is still forbidden because it will lead to Tzaaras and other ailments. Further the Shulchan Aruch rules that while now-a-days one may drink from a glass that was left uncovered overnight (even though it was forbidden in the times of the Gemara for perhaps snakes injected venom into the drink), one is still forbidden to eat fish and meat.
 
We can understand this Shulchan Aruch by assuming that whenever the Gemara made a health decree, the decree is valid only as long as the hazard exists. So while we don't have snakes anymore, there are still many food related ailments that we need to worry about.  To be intellectually honest there are those that allow eating fish and meat, even together, but the general consensus is not like them and we try to avoid it.
 
Do we extend the prohibition even to cooking them together?
The issue here is that the foods are never coming into contact; it is just their reich (smell/ aroma/ steam) that might be imparted into one another.
There are three main opinions to this:
 
1. Opinion of Rav Moshe Isserlis. The Rema (Yoreh Deah 116:2) writes that lechatchila one must be careful not to roast meat and fish together in the same oven. However, ex post facto, one who cooked fish and meat together in a single oven may eat the fish and the meat. Aruch Hashulchan (Yoreh Deah 116:10 strongly
supports the view of the Rema stating that in spite of all of the dissenting opinions we need only concern ourselves with the words of the Rema.
 
2. Opinion of Maharshal. The Shach (ibid. 1) cites the opinion of the Maharshal  that one may even cook meat and fish lechatchila simultaneously in the same oven. He opines that even those who believe that reicha is significant would agree that this is only true regarding forbidden foods and is not true regarding dangerous foods.
 
3. Opinion of Be'er Sheva. The Shach (ibid.) cites the opinion of the Be'er Sheva that although we would generally permit reicha ex post facto, since we are stricter with danger than with forbidden foods (chamira sakanta m'issura) we would not even allow one to eat meat that has already been cooked with fish in.
 
As always ask you Rav if this situation arises, but remember you are playing with real danger, not just G-d's hibby jibbies!
 
If anyone can explain to me why we are stricter with dangerous foods than with forbidden foods (chamira sakanta m'issura) I would love to hear. I mean, logically, I would think eating something naturally dangerous is less bad in G-d's eyes than eating something he declared forbidden.
 
(taken from a shiur from Rav Aryeh Leibowitz, a Rav in North Woodmere)
 
HALACHABOY JOKE:
Teacher: Yisroel Pinchas, use the word 'officiate' in a sentence.
Yisroel Pinchas: A man got sick from officiate.!!!
 
Next we will hopefully discuss Worcestershire Sauce (which apparently is a steak sauce made with fish).

Waiting to put on a Talis until one is Married

Last week we began our discussion on Minhagei Yekkie. As we mentioned last week, the two most common minhangim are wearing a talis from bar mitzva (and not waiting till your wedding) and washing your hands before kiddush. If you missed out on last weeks shiur you can always catch up here http://thehalachaboy.blogspot.com/ . This week let us discuss the other minhag.

 

If one were to sit down and think about it for a moment, the Yekkie's seem to be correct. When a child turns the age of majority (boy 13 and girl 12) we all know that they are now required to perform all positive mitzvos and avoid all averios. So what right do we have to push of wearing a talis till marriage?

 

First off let us realize that wearing a tallis, or tzitzis for that matter, is only a requirement if you are already wearing a four cornered garment. ( I wish I knew this back in high school). However, since we like to recieve presents and rewards, we put on four cornered garments with tzitzis. In fact in many yeshivos they put up signs alerting the -people where and when you can perform various mitzvos (scheita- ritual slaughter, shiluach ha'ken- shewing away a mother bird before taking her eggs, etc). So by not wearing a talis we aren't doing an avera; we just are passing up infinite reward.

 

But why do we want to pass up easy presents?

 

There are at least four explanations for our custom not to wear a talis until married and they are listed, in order of plausibility, below:

1. The Maharil (14th century) in his sefer on Minhagim quotes the custom not to wear a talis until married and he bases it of the connection of the pasukim between getting married and wearing tzittis (see Parshas Ki Seitzei 22: 13-14). We know everything in the torah is written in a specific order to teach us something, so when Hashem decided to put the requirement/ option (its an arguement for another time) to get married next to the mitzva of tzitzis, it was to teach us that one should only wear a tallis once he is married.

2. The Mishna Brurah in the Bear Haitiv quotes a source based on the Gemara in Kiddushin 29b: which says that Rav Huna refused to talk to Rav Hamenuna because Rav Hamenuna was not married and wasn't Pores Sudar (literally: wrapped with a cloth/tallis). While Rashi learns this gemara to mean that Rav Hamenuna did wear a talllis he just didn't cover his head with it, apparently according to the Bear Haitiv others learn that Rav Hamenuna didn't wrap himself with a tallis at all because he wasn't married.

3. The Knesses Hagadol writes that perhaps people were so poor in Eastern Europe that they couldn't afford a tallis for the children when they became Bar Mitzvas, and there was a takana (jewish decree) that in order not to financially stress anyone, all children would not wear tallism until they got married.

4. Finally, the Knesess Hagadol writes that perhaps it used to be that children would get married at 13, and thus people began to associate wearing a tallis as a requirement once married and not due to Bar Mitzva. Thus, once the marriageable age increased people continued to follow this wrong belief and it became a minhag.

 

Either way, the minhag has been established that most Ashkenazic men do not wear a tallis until they are married, and thus even though the textual support is a bit lacking, Minhag Yisroel Torah- Minhag's even if wrong should be followed and become Halacha. Much like the gemara in Bava Metzia (59b- and one of the best stories in Shas) about Rav Eliezer and the Tanor Shel Achnei. Rav Eleizer and the Rabbis argued about the halachic status of a certain type of oven. And while the heaven's decreed that Rav Eliezer was right, since the rule if we follow the majority, they decided to follow to the Rabbis. (for a further discussion on this story and its implications I found this interesting site http://sagoboulevard.blogsome.com/2005/11/10/lo-bashamayim-hi/ ) So too by tallis, even though it seems one should wear a tallis once he becomes a Bar Mitzva, the minhag, for good or for bad, is against that and that is what we must follow.

Making Kiddush on Bread/ Washing Before Kiddush

The Gemara in Pesachim (106a-b) says that Rav Bruna said that one who washed his hands (Netillas Yedayim) can no longer say Kiddush on Friday Night. The gemara, however, argues with this statement by quoting a story of how Rav would sometimes make Kiddush using wine and other times he would use bread. What is the reason for Rav Bruna's ruling and how exactly does Rav's ruling conflict with that of Rav Bruna? 
 
1. The Rashbam says that Rav Bruna was telling us once you washed your hands for bread, saying Kiddush is considered a hefsek (interruption) between the washing and the bread. Thus, you should listen to someone else's Kiddush and once finished you can go make Hamotzi. Rav argued on this however, and said you don't have to hear someone else's Kiddush rather just make Kiddush on bread. However, even Rav would agree that saying Kiddush on wine would be a hefsek between washing and Hamotzi. 
 
2. The Rif and Rambam, as quoted by the Ran, say that once you wash Netilas Yedayim you are showing that you want to eat bread more than drink wine, thus once you wash you can not make Kiddush on wine, because you don't wine, and Rav Bruna held you can't make Kiddush on bread so therefore you were out of options. However, comes Rav and argues and says you are allowed to make Kiddush on bread and thus if you washed already (and shown you want to eat bread) make Kiddush on bread.

 

The Rambam paskins that one can make Kiddush on bread, lchatchila if he desires it more or if there is no wine, and B'di'eved if he washed by accident.
 

3. Ba'al Hamaor says that not only is it forbidden to make Kiddush once you eat, but even once you wash you hands you can not make Kiddush, because once you wash your hands you are showing you would rather eat, so the Rabbi's punished you and forbade you from making Kiddush. However, comes Rav and says if you washed, while you lost out on making Kiddush with wine, you can still make it on bread.
 
4. Rabbenu Tam says that once you wash you can't make Kiddush because Rav Bruna holds that you can make Kiddush outside (Yais Kiddush Shelo B'makom Seuda) and thus there will be a lot of time between washing and Hamotzi, and perhaps your Netillas Yedayim is a Beracha L'evatala. However, Rav holds Ein Kiddush Ela B'makom Seuda and thus you'll be near the table, so a lot of time won't pass between washing and Hamotzi. According to Rabbenu Tam when Rav says he made Kiddush on bread, that does not mean you can make Kiddush on bread (for Rabbenu Tam holds that isn't allowed), rather Rav meant since he was close to his table he made kiddush on wine and then immediatly ate some bread.
 
5. Fifth Pshat- If you wash and then make Kiddush with wine, looks like you washed on wine and Ga'aveh to wash before fruits.(don't have source)

6. Sixth Pshat-  Like Rabbenu Tam except issue isn;t a time issue, its a hefsek issue. Rav Bruna held Yeish Kiddush Shelo Bmakom, therefor since Kiddush isn't required to be said at the table, it is a hefsek to the washing/Motzi. However, Rav who requires Kiddush B'makom will reason that Kiddush is as much part of a meal as anything else and thus not a hefsek to washing/Motzi.(again, don't have source).

7. Shut HaRashba- Rav Bruna was saying if you wash your hands first it shows a zilzul (disregard) for Kiddush. However, once Rav teaches us that you can make Kiddush with bread the fact that I am washing before Kiddush isn't a disregard anymore, for perhaps I am washing because I am going to make Kiddush on bread. Further, once it's not a zilzul better to wash your hands first because wacky to come to table then leave to wash then come back to table. It is better to first wash and then come to the table for meal, then to leave table right after you just arrived. 
 
This idea of the Rashba is quoted by the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch as the minhag for all Ashkenazim. But as we mentioned earlier only Yekkies do this. Why don't the rest of us?
 
The Mishna Brurah writes that following the Rashba is a risk, because if he is wrong all the other rishonim will say you made Beracha L'evitallas because once you wash you can't make Kiddush on wine. So it is better to play it safe, because even the Rashba says it is allowed to wash after Kiddush, then risk the Rashba being wrong.
 
But then why do the Yekki's follow the Rashba?
 
Either because, as we mentioned above, it looks weird to leave table once you arrive, or perhaps, as the Taz writes, since if you were making Kiddush on bread you would wash before Kiddush, so the Rabbis made a uniform rule (Lo plug) that you always wash before Kiddush, even if on wine. 
 
 
 
 

An Additional Haskafic Touch

Interesting side point: As mentioned earlier (see Zimun: What must I eat?) the K'lal of Yatza Motzei only applies to Birchas HaMitzvos and not to Birchos HaNenen. This is interesting because the source of for Yatza Motzei is the concept of Kol Yisrael Arevim Ze L'ze. Why should the concept of Avros, a communal bound, only apply to Ruchniyus (Birchas Hamitvos)and not to Gashmiyus (Birchas HaNenen) ?

 

We can answer with the following yesod. My being yotzei you with a beracha can only work if we both have the same kavana. Further, connecting to someone else's kavanah is only possible work in ruchniyos. In regards to ruchniyos we all deep down want the same thing (Shalom,Geula, Torah, Avodah, Chesed, Mashiach). We all do mitzvos to bring us closer to Hashem and Hashem closer to us. However, in terms of gashmiyos we are all in different boats. I cannot understand why you have the things you do, and you can't possible understand why I have what I do. Since, my being yotzei you with a beracha works only if you have the same kavana as mine, it could only possible work in ruchniyos. 

 

In terms of Birchas HaNenen I can be yotzei you if in fact I need the same beracha myself (Challah on friday night).  This is the Klal of Shomai K'ohneh. Based on the above, we can say the reason this works is that when our gashmiyus levels are exactly the same, we in fact have the same kavanos. We both want the apple because it looks and tastes yummy. 

 

However, since in this world no two people are exactly the same the the pride and haughtiness that comes when having something someone else doesn't have or the unfortunate feeling of deficiency and lacking that results when seeing something you desire but don't have is really unwarranted. One can only possible think he is special or lacking, if the other person was in the exact same position as you; in your own boat.

Let us appreciate our own boats when it comes to materialism; and let us enjoy the shared comfort on our boat of yiddishkeit.

Zimun: What must I eat?

Continuing our discussion of Zimun, the gemara in Berachos (48a) discusses how many people at a meal actually need to eat bread in order to have a zimun. The gemara says that when it comes to a zimun of 10 ( to say Elokeynu in the zimun) you need at least 7 people to eat bread, and the remaining three can eat salad. This is due to the concept of Ruba D'Nikar ( a substantial majority). The gemara, unfortunatly, never discusses the same question in regards to a zimun of 3. What if 2 people had bread and the third ate a salad, can you have a zimun?

 

This question a big debate between Tosfos and the Ran. Tosfos rules that just as 7 out of 10 is a substantial majority (70%), so to is 2 out of 3 (67%), and therefor as long as two out of the three had bread a zimun should be said. The Ran, however, argues and says that while mathematically there should be no difference, the Gemara in other places seems to be more strigent in the case of a zimun of three. Thus, one can not assume that just because Ruba D'Minkar works by a zimun of 10, so too it should apply by a zimun of three. The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch actually bring down both opinions. The Mishna Brurah offers a solution, and says ideally we should try to make the third person eat bread, however, if he refuses to than we can rely on Tosfos and say a zimun.

 

What must the third person eat (or people 7-10)? The Yershulami says the person must eat a mezonos-type product to count. The Bavli, however,a says that the person not eating bread can eat vegetables instead and still count towards to the zimun. Most Rishonim assume that if veggies are allowed, so too is any drink that is not water-based (wine, juice, etc.). However, water-based drinks (soda, ice tea, etc.), while being essential to health, don't fill you up and thus one who drinks only water can't be included in a zimun. The Magen Avraham, argues on this and says since when is the requirement for zimun that the item must fill you up, rather any food or drink that you derive benefit from (water included) can be used to count you towards a zimun. Again the Mishna Brurach says that ideally we should try to make the third person eat bread, however, if he refuses to

than as long as he drank something non-water based (against the Magen Avraham) we can count him towards the zimun.

 

Finally, may the one who is not eating bread lead the zimun? Since there is a K'lal of Yatza Motzei (I can make a beracha for you, even if i don't need it myself, like the megillah reader who rereads for the latecomers) that applies to all Mitzvos (unfortunatly, it doesn't apply to berachos on eating) one would think that since Benching is a mitzva anyone can lead the zimun. Remember, orginally the one who led the zimun said the whole Benching out loud and everyone else listened and was yotzei (like kiddush on friday night). However, the Rabbanun made a decree, that unless one ate a Kezayis he could not lead the Benching. Since in the zimun it says Sh'achalnu (that we ate), it would be decieving to have someone who didn't eat any bread say the Benching for those that had bread. If one did in fact eat a kizayis of bread but wasn't full, the Shulchan Aruch still rules he shouldn't lead the Benching if someone else at the meal at bread and is full. This is due to the pasuk from where Benching is learnt out "Vachlta V'Savata U'veRachta" meaning you should eat, be satisfied and bless. Thus, the Mitza Deoraysa of Benching is only if one is full, and better to have the leader of the Benching be someone who is involved in a Mitzva Deoraysa than D'rabanan.