We continue our study of Shin-Yud-Chet with the Aruch HaShulchan, along with important hakdamot (introductions). The hakdamah we have today is very fundamental. It is the hakdamah regarding kli sheni (secondary vessel). We have our general rule: kli sheni eino mevashel (A secondary vessel does not cook). This rule comes from the Gemara Shabbat. Open it to daf mem-beit amud rishon (folio 42, first side). It’s a straight piece here: the Mishnah. Where is the Mishnah? It’s here, on mem-beit, in Alfas (pan), last line. “Ha’alpas veha-kedeirah (the pan and the pot). Alfas veha-kedeirah shehe’eviran merutachin (They removed them while boiling).” What does shehe’eviran merutachin mean? Rashi says shehe’eviran min ha’ur: you took the pot off the fire. What do we call that? Kli rishon (primary vessel). Lo yiten letochan tavlin (Do not put spices into them). Don’t put spices in it. Rashi says, letochan tavlin mishetechshach de-kli rishon kol zman she-rote’ach mevashel (do not put spices into them after nightfall, while the primary vessel is boiling, because it cooks). Once Shabbat comes—meaning, shehetechshach—don’t put spices into the kli rishon. Why? Because a kli rishon has the ability to cook.
However, the Mishnah says, aval noten hu letoch ha-ke’arah o letoch ha-tamchui (but one may put it into the serving bowl or the serving dish). The ke’arah (serving bowl) and the tamchui (serving dish) are the vessels into which you pour the food. Rashi asks why you may pour the spices—why you may put them—into that item. De-kli sheni eino mevashel (because a secondary vessel does not cook). So that’s not an inference. It says be-feirush Mishnah (explicitly in the Mishnah): the kli rishon cooks; the kli sheni doesn’t cook. And that’s it.
The question we have here is in Gemara daf mem amud bet (folio 40, second side). Go to Gemara daf mem amud bet. At the bottom there’s a story, about ten lines after they get wide. “Amar Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi, pa’am achat nichnasti achar Rebbe (Rabbi Judah the Prince) leveit ha-merchatz” (Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: Once, I entered after Rebbe into the bathhouse). He followed Rebbe into the mikveh (ritual bath), into the beit ha-merchatz (bathhouse). “Uvikashti lehaniach lo pach shel shemen be’ambati” (And I wanted to place a flask of oil in the bath). I wanted to put the pach shel shemen in the ambati. He didn’t want to pour it into the ambati; they didn’t have baths like we have today. He wanted to heat it up. As Rashi says: be’ambati, kegon shel beit ha-merchatz shehayu ba-karka shemoshivin sham bnei adam, uvikashti lehaniach pach shemen lehafshir lasuch himenu kodem rechitzah (The bath was like one in a bathhouse, set into the ground, where people sat; he wanted to place a flask of oil there to warm it and anoint himself with it before bathing). Before he washed, he wanted to put the oil on himself. But the oil was cold, so he wanted to drop the bottle of oil into the ambati—a bath—and let it warm up.
On Shabbat. He was going to the merchatz, either before they made the gezeirat merchatzot (bathhouse decree) and all that. That’s a side point. “Ve’amar li, tol bikli sheni veten” (And he said to me, take it in a secondary vessel and put it in). He told me, “Don’t put it in the ambati. The ambati is a kli rishon. Take the water, put it in a kli sheni, and then put the oil in.” What do we see from here? “Bikli sheni, sheyitztanenu me’at” (in a secondary vessel, so it will cool a little), Rashi says, “de-kli sheni eino mevashel,” and afterward put the flask into that kli sheni. “Deha ambati sheha-chamin nimshachin lah min ha-ma’ayan chashiv lah kli rishon” (because the bath, whose hot water flows to it from the spring, is considered a primary vessel). The bath where the water flows in—it’s like a natural bath—is already considered a kli rishon. So he told me, “You can’t put the oil into the kli rishon; it’s going to cook it. Rather, take out the water, put the water from the bath into a kli sheni, and then put the oil in it.”
Again, you see another Gemara, and Rashi explicitly understands the Gemara this way: kli sheni eino mevashel. Remember the two proofs. Number one: you cannot put the spices in the kedeirah, but you can put them in the kli sheni. I cannot take the oil and put it in the ambati, but I can take the oil and put it in the kli sheni. The Gemara says, by the way, shema minah telat (Learn three things from this): shema minah shemen yesh bo mishum bishul (Learn that oil is subject to cooking), and also, shema minah kli sheni eino mevashel. So, kli sheni eino mevashel, and shema minah hefshero zehu bishulo (its warming is its cooking). Therefore, we have two discussions in the Gemara.
Tosafot, on shema minah, brings a big chiddush (novel insight): shema minah kli sheni eino mevashel. Tosafot has a very big question. Do you see Tosafot, boys? Tosafot asks, “Mai shena kli sheni mi-kli rishon?” (What is the difference between a secondary vessel and a primary vessel?) Tosafot wants to understand why a kli sheni should not cook. “De’i yad soledet, afilu kli sheni nami” (If the hand recoils from it, then the secondary vessel does too). If it’s yad soledet, the kli sheni is also yad soledet. “Ve’i ein yad soledet, afilu kli rishon nami eino mevashel” (And if the hand does not recoil from it, even the primary vessel does not cook). If it isn’t yad soledet, then even a kli rishon doesn’t cook. It’s mi-mah nafshecha (whichever way you look at it). What are we talking about? Is it yad soledet? Then both should cook. Is it not yad soledet? Then neither should cook. Mi-mah nafshecha.
“Ve-yesh lomar, lefi she-kli rishon mitoch she-amad al ha-or dofnotav chamin u-machazik chumo zman merubah, ve-lachen natnu bo shiur de-chol zman she-ha-yad soledet bo asur; aval kli sheni, af al gav de-yad soledet bo, mutar, she-ein dofnotav chamin ve-holech u-mitkarer” (One can say that because a primary vessel stood on the fire, its walls are hot and retain their heat for a long time; therefore, as long as the hand recoils from it, it is forbidden. But a secondary vessel is permitted even if the hand recoils from it, because its walls are not hot and it goes on cooling).
Tosafot says an unbelievable chiddush here. Even if you measure the temperature, the kli sheni is the same heat as the kli rishon. This is 123 degrees; this is 123 degrees. The same heat. This one cooks, and this one doesn’t. What is this, the law of the red heifer? No. Since this vessel was on the fire, dofnotav chamin (its walls are hot): the walls of the kli rishon are hot from the fire. That heat, plus the heat of the walls, means the food is already cooking. But in the kli sheni, you have the heat of the water, whatever the heat of the item is, but you don’t have the heat of the walls that were heated in the kli rishon. Therefore, that is called holech u-mitkarer (it goes on cooling). So, according to Tosafot, cooking something doesn’t depend only on the heat of the water. There are other factors. That’s all I care about: there are other factors. Otherwise, you ask the famous question: “Why? The kli sheni is the same temperature.” It’s not only about temperature. Tosafot says there are other factors that contribute to cooking. One factor he gave us today is the walls. The walls of a kli rishon are hot, but those of a kli sheni are not. The kli sheni is not on the fire. That little difference makes all the difference: ve-holech u-mitkarer.
However, there is a very interesting Rabbi called the Chayei Adam. He comes along and says that it’s true: you cannot argue with Tosafot if the kli sheni is yad soledet bo (the hand recoils from it). What does yad soledet bo mean? Your hand—you’ll pull your hand away. Then you’re right; it doesn’t cook. However, he brings a big chiddush: if the kli sheni is yad nichveit bo (the hand is burned by it), that is much hotter. Your hand isn’t just going to pull away; it’s going to burn your hand off. Meaning, it’s very, very hot. I don’t care about numbers: hot, very hot. The point is, it’s very, very hot. Then the Chayei Adam says even a kli sheni will cook.
Now, this is mind-boggling. The Chayei Adam introduces a new chiddush: kli sheni eino mevashel ke-she-ha-yad soledet bo, aval ke-she-ha-yad nichveit bo, yehe mevashel (A secondary vessel does not cook when the hand recoils from it, but when the hand is burned by it, it will cook). So we have to ask Chacham Chayei Adam: eifoh hu re’ayah (proof)? Where is the proof? “The Chayei Adam is a rishon (early authority)?” No, no, an acharon (later authority), an acharon. But the Chayei Adam is famous; the Mishnah Berurah quotes him all the time.
The Chayei Adam brings two proofs. One is from the Gemara we just quoted. Go back to Gemara mem-beit amud bet, with the ohel (tent)—“aguda de-Vei Chiyya” (the bundle of the house of Chiyya). No, actually it’s mem-beit, first side—sorry, the first Gemara. This is a very important piece. Start at Tannu Rabbanan (The rabbis taught), the two dots on top. You see the two dots by Tannu Rabbanan? “Noten adam”—first, noten adam? “Noten adam chamin le-tokh ha-tzonen” (A person may put hot water into cold water). This Gemara is talking about putting hot water into cold water, or cold water into hot water. Is it permissible or not? The top one is hot, the bottom one is cold, all this kind of thing.
The Gemara begins: “Tannu Rabbanan, noten adam chamin le-tokh ha-tzonen.” Why can I put it into the tzonen (cold water)? Maybe the bottom one is cold, so it will cool it off, and there’s no problem. “Ve-lo tzonen le-tokh ha-chamin” (But not cold water into hot water), because the bottom one is hot. So it sounds as though the bottom is the main item. “Divrei Beit Shammai” (the words of Beit Shammai). “U-Veit Hillel omerim bein chamin le-tokh ha-tzonen bein tzonen le-tokh ha-chamin mutar” (And Beit Hillel say that putting hot water into cold water or cold water into hot water is permitted). He doesn’t make a difference. Why doesn’t he make a difference? Maybe because they mix. Maybe because they mix. Therefore, he doesn’t care if you turn tzonen into chamin, because it mixes together; the water mixes together. So maybe, according to Beit Hillel, it isn’t a problem.
Then it says, “Ba-meh devarim amurim? Be-khos” (When do these words apply? To a cup). When are we talking? In a kos (cup). You have a cup of tea. I have a hot cup of tea and pour cold water into it. Okay, I’m not going to bother you. “Aval be-ambati” (But in a bath)—what is an ambati? A bath. “Chamin le-tokh ha-tzonen ve-lo tzonen le-tokh ha-chamin” (Hot water may be put into cold water, but cold water may not be put into hot water). Stop there. Beit Hillel says that in a bath—and seemingly, what is an ambati? The Chayei Adam understands that the ambati here is talking about a kli sheni. “A secondary vessel?” Yes, yes, yes. Many of the rishonim learned there that it is discussing a bath in a kli sheni.
So who says that? What do you mean? This bath—not every ambati in the Torah. We’re not making a gezerah shavah (verbal analogy), ambati to ambati from Chag HaSukkot. We’re learning about this ambati, as we’ll see. Put it in the bath: heat the water and pour it into the bathtub. So what do you mean? The Gemara is saying that a bathtub is a kli sheni, and it’s clearly saying that if the top one is tzonen and you’re pouring the tzonen into the bath, it’s assur (forbidden), even according to Beit Hillel. What do you mean? It’s a kli sheni! From here, the Chayei Adam says: “You know why? Because that bath is a kli sheni that is not yad soledet; it must be yad nichveit. It must be very, very hot. That’s why they called it an ambati, because that’s how they used to heat the water very, very hot before bathing with it.” Therefore, he says, how could a kli sheni be forbidden? Rather, there must be a chilluk (distinction) between yad soledet and yad nichveit.
The Gemara then asks a question. Continue for a moment. “Ve-Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya oser, amar Rav Nachman amar Rabbah bar Avuha amar Rav halakhah ke-Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya” (Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya forbids it; Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha in the name of Rav that the halakhah is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya). Beautiful. “Savar Rav Yosef le-meimar sefel harei hu ke-ambati” (Rav Yosef thought to say that a basin is like a bath). What about a sefel (basin)? What is a sefel? It’s not as big as a cup, or as small as a cup, but it isn’t as big as a bath. A sefel is something in between. They want to know how to judge it. Is it like a bath, which is assur, or like a cup, which is mutar (permitted)? Like a bucket? Yes, a bucket. “Amar leih Abayei, tani Rabbi Chiyya, sefel eino ke-ambati” (Abaye said to him: Rabbi Chiyya taught that a basin is not like a bath). Okay, it is not a bath; it is like a bath. But one might think the halakhah could be that a basin is like a bath. The Tur, incidentally, learns that the basin is also a kli sheni. The Tur in Shin-Yud-Chet learned the Gemara to mean that the basin is also a kli sheni. The Gemara had a havah amina (initial assumption) that the basin would also be problematic. So you already see that even though we have the general rule kli sheni eino mevashel, the Gemara had no problem saying that sometimes a kli sheni did cook, in the case of a bath.
Then the Chayei Adam finds a phenomenal Rambam. You wouldn’t believe that such a Rambam exists. You have your phones? Open the Rambam, everyone. It’s in Hilkhot Ma’aser (Laws of Tithes)—the last place you’d think someone would discuss this. I’ll tell you how to find it. Go to your Lekhtekha ba-Derekh. I’ll tell you exactly which button to push. Go to Halakhah (halakhah), press Halakhah. Go to the Rambam. Go to Mishneh Torah. Go to Zera’im. Go to Hilkhot Ma’aser. Are you with me, boys? Are you following me through the maze? Go to perek gimmel (chapter three), then tet-vav (fifteen). You got it, boys? Okay, chazak u-varuch (strength and blessing). Tet-vav.
He’s talking here in the laws of ma’aser (tithe). It’s perek gimmel, halakhah tet-vav, in Hilkhot Ma’aser. Certain things don’t require ma’aser until there is gemar melachah (completion of the work), until they’re ready and prepared. For certain things, the chiyuv (obligation) of ma’aser doesn’t take effect until the food is actually cooked. Before that, there is no obligation of ma’aser. So, in tet-vav, he says: “Hashemen misheyered la’ukah, af al pi sheyarad, notel min ha’ekel u-min ha-mamal u-mibein ha-pissin, ve-noten li-ke’arah ketanah o la-tamchoi letoch ha-tavshil, af al pi shehu cham, mipenei she-eino mitbashel bi-kli sheni” (The oil, once it descends into the vat—even though it has descended, he takes from the press and the basins and puts it into a small bowl or a serving dish in the cooked food, even though it is hot, because it does not cook in a secondary vessel). Okay, you can take it—it’s raw. You took this oil, whatever, from between these pieces, and put it in the kli sheni. No problem.
Now, what does the Rambam say? “Ve’im hayah cham beyoter, kedei sheyikaveh et ha-yad, lo yiten letocho, mipenei shehu mitbashel” (But if it was hotter, to the point that it could burn the hand, he should not put it into it, because it cooks). He says, “Don’t take the oil and put it in a kli sheni that is yad nichveit bo, because it cooks, and then you have a problem of ma’asrot.” So you have a Rambam in Hilkhot Ma’aser! Kol hakavod (well done) to the Chayei Adam; they found this Rambam from left field, really deep left field. Here you have something that has nothing to do with this—not Hilkhot Shabbat. Strange, by the way. It’s strange that the Rambam buried that secret in Hilkhot Ma’aser, although he never mentioned it in Hilkhot Shabbat. If I were the Rambam, I would mention it in Hilkhot Shabbat. He doesn’t assume you’re automatically going to know there’s an opinion from Hilkhot Ma’aser, a remote place. Nonetheless, the Chayei Adam says it. He said it! What should I do? He said it, he said it! Ask all the questions you want: Why didn’t he say it in Hilkhot Shabbat? He should have said it; he didn’t. Bottom line, he gave us a kelal (principle). There is yad soledet, and there is yad nichveit. A kli sheni does not cook, but there is another level of kli sheni that is yad nichveit. The Rambam clearly says that, with the oil, a kli sheni cooks when it is yad nichveit.
Then the Chayei Adam comes along and makes his big chiddush: you have to know exactly what type of kli sheni you’re dealing with. You can’t just say, “Hey, kli sheni eino mevashel, therefore don’t measure it, don’t judge it, don’t do anything with it.” And don’t bring me a re’ayah from Tosafot. Tosafot was only talking about yad soledet; it wasn’t talking about yad nichveit. Therefore, you have no proof from any of the rishonim. Vezehu vezehu (and that is that).
Then comes Chacham Chazon Ish. Chacham Chazon Ish, in siman nun-bet (section 52), says: “Me’ikar hadin nir’eh she-ein kli mevashel af beyad nichveit” (Essentially, it appears no vessel cooks even when it burns the hand). The Chazon Ish himself says this: the poskim (halachic authorities) never made this chilluk (distinction). The poskim always said kli sheni eino mevashel. The Chazon Ish recognizes that. “Keivan sheha-poskim lo hizkiru chilluk zeh, ela shekatav shekasheh lehakel be-issur Shabbat” (Since the authorities did not mention this distinction, but wrote that it is difficult to be lenient regarding the Shabbat prohibition). They didn’t write it or discuss it. Okay, but it’s cooking.
“Ve-hineh be-feirush divrei ha-Gemara, noten adam chamin letoch tzonen” (And behold, the words of the Gemara are explicit: a person may put hot water into cold water). Now we go back to this Gemara: “noten adam chamin letoch tzonen,” and then the Gemara said, “But not if it’s in a bath.” If it’s in a bath, it’s a problem. Remember? That was the Chayei Adam’s proof. “Katav ha-Rashba, de-ha’idi bi-kli sheni” (The Rashba wrote that this is a secondary vessel). Beautiful: the bath is a kli sheni. “U-mei shetiyah sheba-kos, u-vazeh nechleku Beit Shammai u-Veit Hillel, i gazrinan kli sheni atu kli rishon” (And the drinking cup is where Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed about whether we decree that a secondary vessel is like a primary vessel). Since, in any case, it doesn’t lead to cooking in a kli sheni, but only to warming, whereas in a bath everyone agrees it is forbidden, even in a kli sheni, since they heat the bathwater a lot because the water is intended for bathing, and then the water poured into it may come to cook.
“U-mevo’ar ba-Rashba sham de-ha-te’am de-kli sheni eino mevashel, mipenei she-be-yad soledet eino magia ha-davar ha-nitan bo lidei bishul ela lidei hefsher, aval be-makom she-higgia lidei bishul, kegon be-noten letoch ambati, kli sheni le’olam assur” (The Rashba makes clear there that the reason a secondary vessel does not cook is that, even when the hand recoils, what is placed in it does not reach cooking, but only warming. But where it does reach cooking, such as putting it into a bath, a secondary vessel is always forbidden).
The Chazon Ish found a Rashba! The Rashba said: What is the difference between a cup and a bath? The cup is also a kli sheni, but it’s for drinking, so you don’t make it so hot. Therefore, when you pour the water into the cup, it may be more lenient because it isn’t so hot; it’s made for drinking. But in a bath, where you heated the water for bathing, you heat it much more. So even though it’s a kli sheni, just like a cup, it’s hotter than a cup, and therefore it can come to cooking. The Rashba learned that the bath is also a kli sheni. He learned that the difference is that the cup only leads to warming; it doesn’t cook. But a bath is heated much higher, I guess, for bathing.
This is the Rashba’s wording again: “De-hai de-bi-kli sheni u-mishtiyah she-ba-kos, mishtiyah she-ba-kos”—the cup is for drinking—“u-ve-zeh nechleku Beit Shammai u-Veit Hillel i gazrinan kli sheni atu kli rishon.” There, by the cup, the disagreement is whether you decree that a kli sheni is like a kli rishon. “De-mikol makom lo ba lidei bishul bi-kli sheni ela lidei hefsher” (Because, in any case, it does not lead to cooking in a secondary vessel, but only to warming). By the cup, it’s clearly a decree. “Ach be-ambati le-chulei alma assur” (But in a bath, everyone agrees it is forbidden), not because of a decree, but even in a kli sheni, “keivan she-mechammin ha-ambati harbeh” (since they heat the bath a lot). Why do they heat the bath a lot? “Lefi she-omdim ha-mayim li-rechitzah, ve-az yavo ha-mayim she-shofech bahem lidei bishul” (Because the water is meant for bathing, and then the water poured into it may come to cooking). The Rashba makes clear that the reason a kli sheni eino mevashel is that when the hand recoils, what you put in it doesn’t come to cooking; it comes to warming. But that’s not the case if it’s yad nichveit or something hotter.
The Chazon Ish says, “Listen, I don’t see it in the poskim, but I found the Rashba, which strengthens the Chayei Adam’s position.” What do we hold? That’s the question. Now we have a Chayei Adam and a Chazon Ish. What is our opinion?
Look at Tosafot on daf mem-bet. Where are you, Tosafot, everyone? I’ll tell you: there. “Noten adam chamin?” Yes, noten adam. Do you see “Noten adam kiton shel mayim?” No, “chamin le-tokh tzonen” at the top. That’s right: noten adam chamin le-tokh tzonen. What? Yes. “Afilu bi-kli rishon de-chamin le-tokh tzonen eino mevashel kemo she-peirish, ve-lo tzonen le-tokh chamin, afilu bi-kli sheni” (Even hot water put into cold water in a primary vessel does not cook, as explained; and not cold water into hot water, even in a secondary vessel). Why? “De-gazri Beit Shammai kli sheni atu kli rishon, u-Veit Hillel de-faligi ve-sharu tzonen le-tokh chamin hainu davka bi-kli sheni, kidekateni ba-meh devarim amurim be-khos” (Beit Shammai decree that a secondary vessel is like a primary vessel, and Beit Hillel, who disagree and permit cold water to be put into hot water, mean specifically in a secondary vessel, as the teaching says, “When do these words apply? To a cup”). “Mah she-ein ken bi-kli rishon modu Beit Hillel” (But regarding a primary vessel, Beit Hillel agrees). “Ve-lo mishum sevara de-vraita de-tata’ah gavar kedimshaneh ve-taretz, im ken yiksheh me-hacha” (And not because of the reasoning in the baraita that the lower one prevails, for if so, it would be difficult from here).
So Tosafot is—hold on, hold on. The whole discussion here is about a kli sheni. What’s the question? Are we going to make a gezerah (decree) that a kli sheni is like a kli rishon? It’s a decree. In a cup, Beit Shammai says, “We’re going to decree that a kli sheni of a cup is like a kli rishon.” Beit Hillel says no. But in a bath, it’s a kli sheni, and a kli sheni really doesn’t cook. Since it’s very hot, though, you could mistake it for a kli rishon. Therefore, according to Tosafot, the bath is forbidden as a decree that it might be mistaken for a kli rishon.
What do you see from Tosafot? Really, even a bath doesn’t cook. Yad nichveit, this or that—the bottom line is that Tosafot learns the whole discussion here is about decrees. The Rashba, however, learned that Beit Hillel says you can’t put it in the bath, even though the bath is a kli sheni, because a kli sheni like this does cook. Tosafot says, “No, no, no. My general rule is kli sheni eino mevashel, period. Measure it, take the temperature. It’s the same temperature, or even hotter; it doesn’t matter.” So how come a bath is forbidden? You’re telling me it’s a kli sheni. Okay, here we made a decree. Why? There’s a lot of water, you see steam coming out of it, it looks very hot, and people might make a mistake. So what do you see from Tosafot? Regarding the kli sheni itself, we’re not going to prohibit it because of cooking. It’s only prohibited because of a decree in the case of a bath.
Okay, what are you using a bath for, to make a kli sheni? Our practical case is not in bathhouses; it’s in a regular bowl. I want to know: can I put the spices in it or not? It comes out that we have a phenomenal disagreement among the rishonim about how to understand this discussion. According to the Rashba, the reason you can’t put it in the bath is a Torah-level prohibition of cooking, even in a kli sheni. According to Tosafot, why is it forbidden to put it in the bath? A decree.
Go further, everyone. By the way, what is Tosafot’s explanation? It was good, as he said above. It has to do with the walls. Once I’ve told you that to cook something you need hot water together with hot walls, I don’t care about yad nichveit, according to Tosafot. The bottom line is that the walls of the kli sheni themselves weren’t hot. So that’s it: holech u-mitkarer. It’s not just heat; the item has to be going in a particular direction. Since it’s going in the direction of holech u-mitkarer, why? Because of—so Tosafot isn’t going to make a distinction.
Everyone, once you say this, we open the Beit Yosef. Maran is in the Beit Yosef, in Yoreh De’ah, in siman kuf-heh (section 105). Listen to Maran’s wording. Maran in the Beit Yosef—you tell me what he holds. “Ve-zeh leshono: de’afilu ma’aleh retichut bi-kli sheni ke’ein shehayah bi-kli rishon eino mevashel” (And this is his wording: even if it produces boiling bubbles in a secondary vessel, as it did in a primary vessel, it does not cook). Finished. It’s the same heat, the same steam. I don’t care: it doesn’t cook. He understands like Tosafot.
Okay, open up the—so the question is, what are we going to do with this ma’aser? This ma’aser is a problem. The Rambam in Hilkhot Ma’aser clearly said that if it’s yad nichveit, it’s going to—We have no choice, everyone, unless you have a better answer. We’re going to have to say that cooking for ma’aser does not have the same definition as cooking for Hilkhot Shabbat. For Hilkhot Shabbat, we have one definition of cooking. Exactly: that is not Shabbat. Rather, it must be that regarding keviat shiur (determining the measure) for ma’aser, even a kli sheni can cook when it is yad nichveit bo. But that doesn’t mean that just because you found cooking regarding ma’aser—as the Gemara says many times, “Tum’ah” (ritual impurity)—“What does Shabbat have to do with it?” You bring me a question from tum’ah here? Those are two different laws. Many times the Gemara establishes a principle, but that principle doesn’t apply there. The Gemara says, “What do you mean—you’re asking me for a principle from Hilkhot Tum’ah ve-Taharah (the laws of ritual impurity and purity) to apply to Hilkhot Shabbat? This has one formula; that has another formula. You can’t always merge the principles.” Therefore, we’ll have to be forced to say, ein hachi nami (indeed, that is so): yad nichveit regarding ma’aser is different, and really a kli sheni does not cook in any of this.
Now, everyone, open the Mishnah on daf kuf-mem-heh (folio 145). Open the Mishnah on kuf-mem-heh, amud bet. What? Open the Mishnah on kuf-mem-heh, amud bet. Chazak u-varuch. The Mishnah says: “Kol she-ba be-chamin me’erev Shabbat shorin oto be-chamin be-Shabbat” (Whatever was boiled in hot water before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat). That’s a famous passage. What is it talking about? Anything you cooked in water before Shabbat—be-chamin me’erev Shabbat—is cooked. “Shorin oto be-chamin be-Shabbat”: you can take that same item and put it in hot water on Shabbat. Why? Ein bishul achar bishul (there is no cooking after cooking). Good.
“Ve-chol she-lo ba be-chamin me’erev Shabbat” (And anything that was not boiled in hot water before Shabbat)—anything that, what? “She-lo ba be-chamin”—the explanation is that it’s raw—“medichin oto be-chamin be-Shabbat” (rinse it in hot water on Shabbat). What does medichin oto mean? What does medichin mean? Irui (pouring)? Oh, pouring. So you’re telling me medichin oto means I can pour water over it. I’m pouring water over something raw? No. A kli rishon cooks. A kli rishon cooks kedei kelipah (the depth of a peel), with irui. So when it says, “Whatever was not boiled in hot water before Shabbat,” it means that it’s raw. What does medichin mean? Can I pour from a kli rishon onto food? It will cook it. So it must be that when it says medichin, it means pouring from a kli sheni.
“No, medichin…” No, no, that’s shorin. Don’t change the words. Explain the Mishnah to me, everyone. “Whatever was not boiled in hot water before Shabbat” means what? It’s raw. Okay, what do these words mean: “medichin oto be-Shabbat”? What does medichin mean? Does it mean placing it in? Okay, good. Then explain what the Mishnah means when it says, “Whatever was boiled in hot water before Shabbat, shorin oto.” What’s the difference between medichin and shorin? I’m asking you, David. You explained to me that medichin means to put it in. No problem. Then what does shorin mean? Are they synonyms? What’s the difference? Therefore, shorin must mean putting it in—shoreh. Medichin must mean pouring. Chazak u-varuch.
Now we’re talking about a raw item. Where are you pouring from? A kli rishon? It can’t be from a kli rishon. If you say a kli rishon cooks to the depth of a peel, it can’t be. Rather, when it says medichin, it must mean that you pour from a kli sheni. I ask a simple question: you just told me kli sheni eino mevashel. So the Mishnah should say, “Anything that wasn’t boiled in hot water before Shabbat”—meaning it’s raw—“shorin oto bi-kli sheni.” Why did it only say medichin oto? One step down? Chazak u-varuch. Why one step down? Do you understand the question? You told me kli sheni eino mevashel, eino mevashel, eino mevashel. So just say shorin oto. The Mishnah knows the words shorin oto. In the first case the Mishnah says, “Anything that was boiled in hot water,” meaning it was cooked, “shorin oto.” Put it in a kli rishon; what do I care? It’s cooked. Shorin oto—or maybe not in a kli rishon, because maybe it appears like cooking. Leave that aside. Obviously, shorin oto bi-kli sheni—yes or no? Obviously, I can put it in a kli sheni. But when it comes to something that isn’t cooked, no: only medichin oto. Exactly. It can’t be. Chazak u-varuch.
Open Tosafot, everyone, on daf lamed-tet amud rishon. Baruch Hashem, you’re getting your money’s worth in this Gemara. You’re turning pages. Ready? Tosafot, dibur ha-matchil (the opening words), “Kol she-ba be-chamin.” Ready? Tosafot says: “Kol she-ba be-chamin me’erev Shabbat, perush: shenitbashel legamrei” (Whatever was boiled in hot water before Shabbat means it was completely cooked). Beautiful. “Ke-dimfaresh be-sof perek Chavit daf kuf-mem-heh, kegon: tarnegolet de-Rabbi Abba, shorin oto be-chamin, afilu bi-kli rishon” (As explained at the end of the chapter, for example, Rabbi Abba’s chicken: soak it in hot water, even in a primary vessel). No problem; it’s cooked.
“Ve-chol she-lo ba… medichin oto.” What does medichin mean? According to the Rashba’s explanation, that it means irui kli rishon, pouring from a primary vessel, it works well. I understand the Mishnah: it’s not permitted to soak it in a kli rishon, but you may rinse it from a kli rishon, because pouring is acceptable. The Rashba holds that irui does not cook. According to the Rashba, no problem; you can understand that it’s a kli rishon.
But according to Rabbeinu Tam, who explains that pouring is like a kli rishon—according to Rabbeinu Tam, who learns that pouring cooks—al korchach medichin oto mi-kli sheni ka’amar (necessarily, it means to rinse it from a secondary vessel). It must be that medichin there means rinsing it from a kli sheni. If so, why specifically medichin? It could even say shorin! That’s Tosafot’s question. Why did the Mishnah say medichin, from a kli sheni? We just told you in six places: kli sheni eino mevashel, kli sheni eino mevashel. So it shouldn’t only say that you may rinse it from a kli sheni; it should already say that you may soak it in a kli sheni. Do you understand Tosafot’s question?
Tosafot says, “Ve-omer Ri, de-afilu bi-kli sheni ein shorin” (And the Ri says that even in a secondary vessel, one may not soak it). First answer: indeed, even in a kli sheni you may not soak it. Why? “De-ho’il de-ha-mayim chamin, mechzei ki-mevashel” (Since the water is hot, it appears like cooking). Wow. In its first answer, Tosafot says, “Everyone, you’re right: kli sheni eino mevashel. So why can’t I put it in the kli sheni? There’s an appearance of cooking with a kli sheni.” Okay, there’s an appearance of cooking with a kli sheni. If we’re going to have that appearance, we’ll have a lot of problems. No, it doesn’t cook. It doesn’t cook, but it mechzei ki-mevashel (appears like cooking). People will see that it’s still hot, and they’ll see someone putting raw food into a hot item. Indeed, it doesn’t cook, but it appears to cook; it’s a decree. Continue.
“Af al gav de-amar Rabbanan noten letoch ha-ke’arah o letoch ha-tamchui…” Another possibility: look at the “i nami.” “Hu ha-din shorin oto” (The same law applies: one may soak it). Indeed, you can actually put it in a kli sheni. Since it’s being discussed in a kli sheni, and they use the word medichin to teach us that even that rinsing is the completion of the work with mali’ach yashan (old salted fish) and kolias ha-ispenin (small salted fish). Indeed, medichin is not specifically meant. When the Mishnah says medichin, it really means shorin. Why did it say medichin? Because later it will discuss kalei ha-bishul (items that cook easily), and with regard to those, even medichin will be forbidden. Right. So it says that you may rinse this, but there will be something else that you may not even rinse. Indeed, in this first case you could even soak it. Do you understand? Beautiful.
So Tosafot has two approaches here, and they’re completely different. Wow, everyone! The first answer says that it’s specifically forbidden: a kli sheni has an appearance of cooking. By the way, we’re going to have to see what we hold regarding that. The second answer, which interests me, says: no problem. Don’t get nervous about why it says you have to rinse it. You can not only rinse it; you can actually soak it, because I told you what? Kli sheni eino mevashel. So according to Tosafot’s first answer, let’s look at that first answer, because that’s the interesting one. Tosafot comes along and says, “An appearance of cooking.” It doesn’t contradict the other Tosafot you wrote, the one on daf mem, about why a kli sheni—no, it isn’t saying that it cooks. Those are two separate things.
By the way, there’s an appearance of cooking. How come there’s an appearance of cooking even when there’s no cooking? Why can’t I take regular cooked food and put it on the fire on Shabbat? It doesn’t cook. There’s an appearance of cooking. There’s an appearance of cooking. Wait, why did we go over this? I know that a kli sheni is fine; it doesn’t cook. But here there’s an appearance of cooking, and it brought you a new concept of appearance—so it’s—Oh, those are two subjects. I’m not going to teach you the whole Torah every time I discuss something. There we talked about whether it cooks or not. You ask me, “Chacham, does a kli sheni cook or not?” “It doesn’t cook.” Then you walk away, go to a different lesson, and the Rabbi tells you there’s an appearance of cooking. You come back to me: “Hey, how come you didn’t tell me about the appearance of cooking?” You didn’t ask me about that; you asked whether it cooks. I answered your question. What do you want from me? Did I tell you the whole Torah now? I didn’t tell you the whole Torah. Is this Chad Gadya (One Little Goat), where I have to explain every single consequence? Fine.
But the major question against this Tosafot is the story of the Rabbi who went to the bathhouse. The Chacham went to the bathhouse with the oil. He wanted to take the oil and put it in the bath to warm it up, which is cooking, in a kli rishon. The Rabbi told him, “Dir balak, tol bi-kli sheni.” What do you mean, “Take it in a kli sheni”? If you hold that there’s an appearance of cooking in a kli sheni, how could the Rabbi have told him to put it in a kli sheni? Do you understand the question, guys? You’re telling me Tosafot says there’s no cooking, but there is an appearance of cooking? That means oil in a kli sheni. What happened to the appearance of cooking there? If I wanted to bring a proof against Tosafot, I would bring a proof from the Gemara: in the time of the Chachamim, they didn’t make a decree about the appearance of cooking. It’s the same Gemara. Tosafot wants to learn that this Mishnah is telling you why it says medichin: because shorin would have an appearance of cooking. That means I cannot take something raw and soak it in a kli sheni. Why? The appearance of cooking.
“Chacham, what about the oil?” Maybe you can say oil is different. What’s the difference? Oil cooks. First of all, the Gemara says, shema minah shemen yesh bo mishum bishul. And oil doesn’t have to get piping hot: hefshero zehu bishulo. So, seemingly, there’s no cooking, but there should be an appearance of cooking. We only hold—everyone! Everyone! The kli sheni—No, in that case it was a kli rishon.
Everyone, are you ready to learn a Maharsha? Okay, let’s learn a Maharsha. Lamed-tet, Tosafot, and the Maharsha on lamed-tet. Let’s see if we can understand what the Maharsha is saying. It might take you the rest of the lesson to find the Maharsha, but we’ll try. Maharsha at the back of the book, lamed-tet, on the Tosafot we just did, lamed-tet amud rishon. Let me set it up properly. Tosafot himself asked about this appearance of cooking. He asked himself: “Listen, I know I’m coming up with a big chiddush of an appearance of cooking. The Gemara on mem-beit said, ‘Aval noten letoch ha-ke’arah.’ Didn’t we learn that you’re allowed to put spices into the kli sheni? The Gemara—the Mishnah—learned above that you cannot put the spices in a kli rishon, but you can put them in a kli sheni. So Tosafot says, ‘Hey, what about the appearance of cooking?’” He asked himself!
Tosafot answers: “Aval noten letoch ha-ke’arah o letoch ha-tamchui, hainu davka tavlin” (But one may put it in the serving bowl or serving dish; that applies specifically to spices). That’s only spices. Why? “She-ein asuyim le-matek et ha-kedeirah” (because they are made to season the pot). The spices are just there to give the pot flavor. So we’re not going to say there’s an appearance of cooking for an item that isn’t for itself, but is only there to—You’re not going to cook the spices on their own. I’m not going to say there’s an appearance of cooking for spices that aren’t for themselves. Bring another raw item that you’re cooking for itself, and I’ll say there’s an appearance of cooking. But I’m not saying there’s an appearance of cooking for spices that are there to season the pot. Tosafot recognizes that in some places there will be an appearance of cooking, and in some places there won’t.
Open the Maharsha. Look at Maharsha on lamed-tet, at the dibur ha-matchil “Kol she-ba.” You see lamed-tet? I have a yod-alef (eleven) over mine in the Gemara. David, do you have it? At the dibur ha-matchil “Kol she-ba”: “Hainu davka tavlin she-ein asuyim le-matek et ha-kedeirah, ad kan” (This applies specifically to spices that are made to season the pot; thus far). That’s Tosafot’s wording. Okay, now he starts. What is “kuf-kuf”? What is kuf-kuf? “Kahal Kadosh”? “Pit’om Kahal Kadosh al ha-tziyun”? What is kuf? “Ktzat kasheh, ktzat kasheh, ktzat kasheh” (A little difficult, a little difficult, a little difficult)! “Kol she-ken”—kuf-kuf is kol she-ken? Kuf-kuf is kol she-ken? No, that’s a chaf-shin. How did you get from chaf-shin to kuf-kuf? Huh? Kuf-kuf—George says monkeys. I really give you guys a lot. Appreciate how patient I am with you guys over here.
In the yeshiva, when they see tzadi ayin (the initials for “needs study”), the yeshiva guy says tzarich iyun (requires further study). It’s a hot Maharsha; we have to take a cigarette. “Tzarich iyun,” and they go outside for a cigarette. So the Maharsha says tzarich iyun, tzarich iyun. “Ktzat kasheh, de-ha gabei shemen be-ayin amrinan le-kaman de-ein kli mevashel, ve-shemen be-ayin lo shayach beh le-matek” (It is somewhat difficult, because regarding oil directly exposed, we say later that no vessel cooks, and oil directly exposed cannot be explained as seasoning the pot). The oil there—you can’t give the same reasoning as the spices. It isn’t there to season the pot! And there the Gemara said what? “Put it in a kli sheni.” Tosafot, your reasoning about seasoning works for spices, okay, but you can’t give that answer for oil. You’re cooking the oil for the oil; that’s why you’re using it. It appears like cooking. In this case, I want to cook the oil so I can—kli sheni eino mevashel, but where is the appearance of cooking?
“Ve-yesh lomar de-shani hatam de-mafsik keli” (One can say that there it is different because a vessel interrupts). The Maharsha throws in a big chiddush. When do we say that a kli sheni appears like cooking according to Tosafot? When it is directly exposed, when you take the food itself and put it into a kli sheni. With the oil, I’m not putting the oil into a kli sheni; the oil is in a jug. The oil is in a vessel. But when it’s already in a vessel, that’s an hefsek keli (intervening vessel). A baby bottle, yes. Chazak u-varuch. The Maharsha says this means the appearance of cooking is rabbinic. Okay, once it’s rabbinic, we can—“They made the rule, and they made its limits.” If you tell me it’s a Torah-level prohibition, I’m stuck. What do I do? But once you tell me it’s a rabbinic prohibition, okay: hem amru ve-hem amru. In a case where you’re actually putting raw food into a kli sheni, Chacham, enough, that’s enough. But when you tell me there’s an intervening vessel, that’s why the Rabbi told him, “Ah, the oil is in a jug? Put it in a kli sheni.” He wasn’t worried about the appearance of cooking. The Pri Megadim also rules this way, which we’ll see.
There’s one question we’ll have to see, and we’ll see it tomorrow. According to those opinions that said the bath is a kli sheni, the bath is a kli sheni. No, the case of the bath where we said you could put the hot water into the bath was a question. The hot water into the bath, or the hot water into the cup—that’s where they started putting it in. Hot water into hot water. There, Tosafot said in one answer, “Indeed, it’s a kli sheni! The bath is a kli sheni.” Why is it forbidden? A decree that it might be confused with a kli rishon.
Why doesn’t Tosafot just follow his own position and say it’s because of the appearance of cooking? Tosafot, explain this to me. You’re right: a kli sheni eino mevashel, even in a bath. So why can’t I put cold water into the bath? What did Tosafot say there? We learned it: a decree that it might be confused with a kli rishon. Why is it a decree? Because a bath is big and hot, and it’s not going to cool. It’s a decree. How come Tosafot has to make a new reason? Go according to your own position. What did you tell me on lamed-tet? The reason you can’t put things into a kli sheni is what? And you can’t tell me that in the water case there’s an intervening vessel. Mah piha hefsek keli? The whole Tosafot says there’s an appearance of cooking in a kli sheni. A kli sheni eino mevashel! The appearance of cooking is in a place where there is no cooking. If there is cooking, then it isn’t an appearance of cooking; it’s cooking. How are you going to answer that question? Do you have a question, Marcelo?
Once again, Tosafot told me that there is an appearance of cooking in a kli sheni, yes or no? Yes. We learned the Gemara above. What did the Gemara say? There is a bath, boiling hot, a kli sheni, Tosafot said. The Gemara said I cannot pour the cold water into the bath. Why? A decree that it might be confused with a kli rishon. Chazak u-varuch, Isaac. I know—did Tosafot say that? We learned that a second ago. Why do they have to say it’s a decree that it might be confused with a kli rishon? Just say it’s a decree because of the appearance of cooking. You just told me there’s an appearance of cooking in a kli sheni. Yes, an appearance of cooking. Chazak u-varuch. I know it doesn’t cook. The appearance of cooking means that it functions as cooking, no? This is a bath. Why make a decree that it might be confused with a kli rishon, then? I make it forbidden. By the way, why is it forbidden? Just say it’s forbidden as a decree that it might be confused with a kli rishon. What is that decree? As if they were taking a shower in a kli rishon, it would be like cooking. Tosafot had to give a different answer there.
You had a disagreement. Beit Hillel was okay with it—meaning, Beit Shammai was—In the Gemara it said that in a bath everyone agrees. Right, in a bath everyone agrees. The disagreement was about a cup. Rather, the Chachamim made another distinction tonight, everyone. You don’t want to hear it? Another distinction. When did the Chachamim say that something appears like cooking in a kli sheni? With a davar gush (solid food), when you drop the item in, it acts on the item. But with a davar lach (liquid food), with water, what happens? It mixes. Once you’re already saying the water mixes, the top goes to the bottom. That’s not like a solid item getting pounded and cooked; it’s mixing—irbuvya (mixing). Therefore, if I take raw chicken and drop it into a kli sheni, Tosafot says, “Ah, that appears like cooking! You can see that you’re cooking this raw chicken.” But not with a liquid, where there’s water. Water mixes.
We just finished learning, Rabbi, that when it comes to liquids, it’s very complicated, because there is cooking after cooking when it comes to liquids. What cooking? There’s no cooking here; it’s a kli sheni. There’s no cooking here. Remember, it’s a kli sheni. We’re not discussing cooking, everyone. Exactly: it’s not nikar (recognizable). Chazak u-varuch, Yahya, chazak u-varuch. It’s not nikar. Why isn’t it nikar? Where is it? Where is it? Where is it? Ah, are you cooking? What did you cook? The water? Where is the water? It’s all water. But not with a chicken, Rabbi Abba: when I drop raw chicken into something, there it appears like cooking. Chazak u-varuch.
So, the Maharsha’s conclusion: there is no appearance of cooking when a vessel intervenes. According to these commentators, there’s no appearance of cooking when—Where is the appearance of cooking? Where’s the meat? Where’s the chicken? Ma’avid tarnegol. It disappeared! Abracadabra. Avida ki-deva’ei. As they say among the Tzedokim (Sadducees)? Very nice. Okay, everyone, ad kan (up to here). We’ll continue this tomorrow. Beautiful lesson.