Good morning, everyone, and a blessed day. We are broadcasting today from our studios in Surfside, Florida, with our esteemed Rabbi El Malech and the beautiful congregation. May Hashem fulfill all their wishes, Amen. We are engaged in "Bikim Behalacha," the Vico Mizrahi edition, dedicated for the complete recovery of Hayim Ben Mazal, by his sons, for the daily study of halacha. This session, "Bikim Behalacha 6," is also dedicated in memory of Dania Cohen, of blessed memory. Today marks day 44, and we are on page 111, studying for the complete recovery of Shalemo ben Adel. We continue our discussion this morning on the types of vessels suitable for ritual hand-washing.
Yesterday, we discussed milk bags, pot covers, leather pouches, and sprinkling cans. The basic rules we established were that a vessel, even if it cannot stand on its own, is acceptable, provided it truly functions as a vessel. For instance, a soup ladle would technically be permissible, even though it is wobbly and rounded, because it holds a specific volume of water (a revi'it) and maintains its form. This contrasts with a leather pouch, which we deemed problematic. We also discussed pot covers, concluding that their suitability likely depends on how they are used. Welcome, Victor.
Today, we will discuss a more common scenario: pitchers. If you are following along, we are on page 111. A pitcher is a regular receptacle, typically with a spout. The question arises when one wants to use a pitcher to pour water directly onto the hands for ritual hand-washing, rather than into a separate cup. This situation can occur in places like hotels, where pitchers are provided for water, often intended for pouring into individual cups. However, some individuals might prefer to pour directly from the pitcher onto their hands.
Pitchers are designed with a spout to facilitate pouring, a small ledge that protrudes from the top, guiding the water into a cup without spilling. The question is: can this spout be used for ritual hand-washing? The author writes that a pitcher, referred to as a "kan kan," has a spout to facilitate pouring. If this spout protrudes from the vessel, as most do, some opinions suggest that while the vessel itself can be used, one should not pour water through the spout. Instead, one should pour from the main rim of the pitcher. This is because they do not consider the spout to be an integral part of the vessel, viewing it as an extension or an addendum. Therefore, one should use the main body of the pitcher, specifically the lower rim, for pouring.
Another reasoning is offered for spouts that are higher than the vessel's rim. If the spout is higher, it cannot hold water above the vessel's rim without spilling. In such a case, one would only be able to use the portion of the vessel below the spout, which is the main body of the pitcher. Thus, one would pour from the side of the pitcher. This view holds that the spout, from its opening upwards, is not considered a valid part of the vessel for this purpose. This opinion is attributed to the Mishnah Berurah.
However, Rabbi Hayda holds a different view. He states that the spout is always considered part of the vessel, regardless of whether it is higher than, equal to, or lower than the vessel's rim. According to him, one can always use the pitcher, even pouring directly from the spout itself. This is the custom of the Ben Ish Hai. The Ben Ish Hai, in Halakha Zayin, discusses a vessel called an "ibrek" in Arabic, similar to a kettle. He states that if the spout is higher than the rim, it is preferable to be careful and use the rim. The Kaf Hachaim, in Siman Kuf Nun Chet, elaborates on this, noting that while some are drawn to stringent opinions, the Ben Ish Hai suggests that those who choose stringency demonstrate a higher spiritual level, allowing them to reach elevated spiritual planes.
The discussion continues regarding cases where the spout is equal to the rim. In such common cases, there is no halachic concern, and even the Rishon LeTzion was lenient. A more unusual case is a pitcher where the spout is lower than the rim. This might occur with a vessel that has a mechanism to block the water from exiting the spout until opened. In this specific scenario, some opinions suggest that one should exclusively use the spout, as the water would only reach the spout's level before spilling out. The portion of the vessel above the spout would then be considered merely decorative. Thus, for every situation—whether the spout is higher, equal to, or lower than the rim—it is generally preferable to use the lower part of the vessel for pouring.
The final case discussed involves old-fashioned kettles, like tea kettles. These have a spout that is not merely an extension of the top edge but rather a separate tunnel through which water is poured. Some opinions consider this type of spout to be separate from the main vessel, as it is not made as an integral part of the container but rather as a distinct extension solely for pouring. According to this view, if one uses such a kettle for ritual hand-washing, one must pour the water from the top of the kettle, not through the spout, because it is considered a separate component.
However, the custom of Sephardic Jews is to rely on the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the spout is indeed part of the kettle. Therefore, they perform ritual hand-washing by pouring water through the spout itself. While someone with a higher degree of fear of Heaven might choose to pour from the top of the kettle, there is a clear basis to be lenient in this case.
An interesting case is then presented: a cup with a built-in straw, similar to a child's sippy cup. If one pours water from the side of the cup where the straw is attached, water will come from both the cup's rim and potentially the straw. If one pours from the opposite side, water will only come from the cup's rim. According to the principles taught, it is permissible to use such a cup for ritual hand-washing. One should pour the water from the side of the cup, avoiding the straw itself. This is the ruling of Pesach. Even if some water comes from the straw's side, the majority of the water will fall from the cup's rim. Therefore, according to Rabbi Lev Ram Buczach, as long as the water primarily comes from the lower level of the cup's edge, the act of hand-washing is valid. This holds true even if a small portion comes from a higher level, and even if the two streams of water begin separately, as long as they mix before falling onto the hands. Furthermore, Rabbi Avchida ruled that a container can be used even if one side of the rim is higher. Therefore, the fact that the straw is higher is not a concern, as it is attached to the cup. The common custom among Sephardic Jews is to be lenient in such cases.
One might argue that the leniency for a higher rim applies because the rim's purpose is for pouring, whereas a straw, even if permanently attached, is not intended for pouring. However, the conclusion is that the best practice is to hold the cup in a way that prevents any water from pouring through the straw, always using the other side. This approach resolves any potential issues, even though, technically, according to Sefardic Halacha, it might not be a problem. For tall, narrow vessels like wine decanters with small spouts, one must be careful to ensure sufficient water flows onto the hands.
Yesterday, we discussed milk bags and leather pouches. We concluded that a milk bag is not suitable, comparing it to a leather pouch. Maran rules that a leather pouch is not good because when empty, it does not hold its form and therefore does not resemble a vessel. Even if placed in a rigid holder, the water still comes from the bag itself, rendering it invalid.
I want to review an important point regarding washing hands before eating moist or wet foods, which is a matter of significant halachic concern. Many people are unaware of the need to wash hands in such situations, and the poskim are very strict about it. The issue arises even if the food becomes wet only upon contact with air or a human. We previously discussed yogurt, which is a very common food. If one eats yogurt with a spoon, especially if mixed with items like berries or granola, the yogurt, being milk, is one of the seven liquids that require hand-washing if one dips food into it. We learned that two leniencies are usually required to avoid washing. In "Bikim Behalacha," it was initially written that one could rely on the milk being pasteurized as a leniency. However, Rabbi Bitan has since retracted this, now holding that pasteurization is not considered "cooked" for this halachic purpose. He argues that "cooked" refers to items cooked together with the food being dipped, not merely the liquid being pasteurized alone.
Therefore, if you eat yogurt with a spoon, and you've added granola or other items, you might need to wash your hands, unless you are eating less than a kezayit of the dipped item, or you have another leniency. If you drink plain yogurt without adding anything, that's fine. The problem arises when you dip something into it, like granola. This applies to cereal as well. Cereal with milk is a food moistened with a beverage, and milk is one of the seven beverages. While our practice has been to eat cereal without washing, perhaps relying on pasteurization or the fact that it's eaten with a spoon, Rabbi Bitan now disagrees with relying on pasteurization. He cites Rabbi David Yosef, who is stringent, implying that eating cereal with milk would require hand-washing. Porridge, however, is cooked with the liquid, so it is permissible. The distinction is that pasteurization alone is not considered cooking in the same way that cooking the food and liquid together is.
This is a significant clarification. Rabbi Bitan now states that pasteurization of a single ingredient, like milk alone, does not grant it the status of "cooked" for this halacha. However, if an item is pasteurized with other ingredients, it could be considered cooked. For example, wine pasteurization is not considered "cooked," nor is milk or water alone for tea. But coffee, where the beans are cooked with the water, is considered "cooked." Similarly, ketchup, which is cooked with other ingredients, is considered "cooked." Therefore, eating French fries with ketchup would be lenient, especially if one is careful not to touch the ketchup directly or eats with a fork.
So, the general rule is: anything primarily eaten with a spoon, where one does not use their hands, is permissible without washing. This applies to soup, for example, which is always eaten with a spoon. However, if one dips items into yogurt or labneh, that would be problematic. The issue of tahini is also raised. Tahini contains water, and according to the Rambam, even a drop of water can be significant. If tahini contains a majority of water, and one eats it with pita, which requires washing for the bread, and then dips it in tahini, this could be an issue. However, if tahini is only eaten with a spoon, then it would be permissible without washing, as the decree against not washing was not made for items exclusively eaten with a spoon.
The discussion extends to carrots and cucumbers with various dips like Thousand Island dressing or ketchup. Ketchup, being cooked with other items, is considered "cooked," allowing for leniency. However, if a liquid is cooked alone, like water for tea, it is not considered "cooked" in the same way. This is why some are more lenient with coffee (where beans are cooked with water) than with tea (where water is cooked alone and a tea bag added). This is a game-changer, but we can be lenient with cornflakes if they are eaten primarily with a spoon. The main rule is: if you primarily eat something with a spoon and do not use your hands, you are generally okay.
However, this leniency might not apply to salads, especially if olive oil and water are added to vegetables. One often uses hands to eat salad, making it different from cornflakes. This is a complex issue, and we need clarity. We will continue this discussion tomorrow morning. Have a good day.