Tana Devei Eliyahu (The teaching of Eliyahu’s academy). Tana, Tana. Taf-Nun-Alef: we did Alef, Gimel, Yud, and Yud-Alef. We can do Yud-Bet first: hag’alah in a kli rishon (first vessel). A kli rishon is a vessel that was heated by the fire. Even if it has now been removed from the fire, it is still called a kli rishon as long as the water is at yad soledet (hand recoils from heat). As long as the water is at yad soledet, even if it is off the fire, you can do hag’alah in it.
Kelim (utensils), Yud-Gimel: Before hag’alah, you have to remove all the chaludah—rust—from a vessel. If a knife has rust on it, you have to scour it well with a sharpener or a stone. You sharpen it, or get the rust off with the stone. If a knife or another vessel has gumot—holes in it—and you cannot clean them well, hag’alah will not help; you need libun (heating until purged) in the holes. How do you do libun in the holes? You put burning coals there.
It is specifically rust that has mamashut (substantial physical matter). But mere blackening, or redness, like pots that turn black from the fire, is not a problem. Even after the rust is removed, a roshem—a little thing there—may remain; leit lan bah (it does not matter). Otherwise, you would hardly find any vessel that you could do hag’alah on. Every vessel has some blackening or something from the fire. The only thing you have to remove is rust.
Now, vessels used directly over a flame without water, such as spits and griddles. These are spits used directly on the fire. Just a moment—what do you want? Back to me? All right, you got it. So he says, “Vessels used directly over a flame without water.” You don’t know sign language, do you? I don’t speak sign language either. I thought—I’m very bad at sign language. Kid, because I can’t see.
Vessels used directly over a flame without water, such as spits and griddles used to roast over the fire, and the like, need libun. Hag’alah will not help. That’s a big klal (rule): what absorbs through water, as in bishul (cooking), releases through water. Whatever absorbs through cooking with water will release through water. But whatever absorbs through fire will not release through water, only through fire.
Therefore, the pans used to bake bread or pastry need libun, because they are in the oven, which uses fire. But a machavat—a frying pan—in which bread is fried with fat, oil, or butter is like cooking, and hag’alah is enough. That’s a big klal: tigun (frying) is like bishul. So whatever you fry is like something cooked in liquid, and therefore you can use hag’alah. “What difference does it make to me whether it is water or fat?” The point is that it is a liquid; it does not have to be water. Although much less fat is used than water in a pot, there is no set measure for that.
Some say the frying pan needs libun because sometimes the fat dries up, and the dough bakes on the pan. However, even if you say it needs libun, it does not need strong libun; libun kal is enough. It is enough for a piece of kash—a piece of straw—to burn on the outside. You do not need it to turn red and throw off nitzotzot—sparks—or anything like that. You just need it hot enough that a piece of straw placed against the back of the pan will burn.
The minhag (custom) is to do libun on these pans from the outset. We have to see that this is the minhag. But if someone did hag’alah, bedi’avad (after the fact), it is acceptable if there are no holes in the pan. We do not trouble him to do libun afterward, because according to the basic law, hag’alah is enough. According to the law, hag’alah is mutar (permitted).
Now he explains what libun is. Complete libun—kebod Siyao—is when sparks fly off it. That is really complete libun: it has to reach the point where sparks fly off the pot. I don’t know if our pots today ever get to that level. They’re sturdy; our pots are made very well. In those days, when you did libun, it would actually get red and sparks would come off. Today, I don’t think you’ll see sparks.
Some are lenient and say it is enough for a piece of straw to burn on the outside of the vessel. They say it does not have to get that hot: put a piece of straw against the outside of the vessel, and if it burns, that is enough.
In particular, this applies to chametz (leavened grain) that was absorbed while permitted, heiteira bala—before Pesach (Passover), it is permitted. That is a very important klal. Remember those words: heiteira bala. Chametz is called heiteira bala because before Pesach it is permitted. It is not basar bechalav (meat and milk). Basar bechalav isura bala (absorbed while forbidden). What goes into a pot before Pesach is called heiteira. Therefore, we are more lenient when it comes to koshering chametz. It is forbidden on Pesach, but it was not forbidden when it went in. Something that went in while permitted is easier to get out.
Some say that, for this reason, it is enough to do this level of libun, without requiring sparks, because, as we said, it was absorbed while permitted. Others maintain that chametz is considered absorbed while forbidden because the name chametz is forbidden with respect to Pesach, even before Pesach. Some would say, then, that chametz is absorbed while forbidden because, with respect to Pesach, chametz is forbidden. You are right that it went in while permitted, but why are you doing hag’alah? You are doing hag’alah to remove the prohibition that will apply later. That eventual prohibition, they say, means it was absorbed while forbidden. However, the minhag follows the first opinion. Finish: we hold that chametz is absorbed while permitted. Put that in your rule books: chametz is absorbed while permitted.
That applies to something that definitely needs libun. But for something that we only require libun for as a stringency, such as a frying pan and the like, or a vessel with cracks, holes, or rust that we require libun for, the light libun we described is enough. In other words, everything we are discussing here applies when you definitely need libun. Then you need the libun we mentioned, with sparks and all that. But if libun is only a chumra (stringency), as we said about certain things that require libun as a stringency, you do not need strong libun. You can rely on the piece of straw burning on the outside.
Why does he say that? He says that it is the minhag. But when it went in—let’s talk about the time it went in. You cannot tell me chametz and basar bechalav are the same. With basar bechalav, it went in forbidden. With chametz, all your pots absorbed it while permitted. I’m discussing the time of absorption. At the time of absorption, it was absorbed while permitted. Will it eventually become forbidden? Basar bechalav is always forbidden. They are saying that once you have a sevara (reasoning) of heiteira bala, you can be lenient about the level of libun.
So he says the reasoning follows the first opinion, but that applies to something that definitely needs libun. For something we only require libun for as a stringency, such as the frying pan that might dry up, or a vessel with cracks, holes, or rust, the light libun we described is enough. For things that definitely need libun, we are stringent and require actual libun. For the other things, where we require libun as a stringency, we can be lenient with light libun. So you always have to analyze the item: am I requiring libun according to the law, or as a stringency? If it is according to the law, the libun has to be stronger. If it is a stringency, light libun is enough.
The chatzuvah—a tripod—is a stand with three legs on which the pot rests. It needs libun. Sometimes something spills from the pot onto it, and the fire is right underneath. If dough spills onto it, that needs libun. The bottom line is that the fire is underneath this spit—really, it is a tripod—and things fall onto it. Once something falls onto it, whether dough or meat, it needs libun. It seems that light libun is enough for this, because again, this is a stringency. Let the straw burn on the outside.
One more paragraph: the method of koshering each vessel is according to its use. That is the rule: the kashrut (kosher status) of a pot depends on its use. If it is used in a kli rishon, like a ladle used to stir a pot, then it is used in a kli rishon. That is the maximum heat the ladle comes in contact with. Also included is a vessel used to draw food from a kli rishon. Whether you stir with it or use it to ladle, you need to kosher it in a kli rishon.
Know that the ruling seems clear: a vessel whose use is directly over the fire, such as a pot used for cooking, is not adequately koshered by hag’alah in a kli rishon unless it is on the fire. This was already explained in the section on cooking, Yud-Chet: a kli rishon is a lower level when it is standing by the fire. There are nafka minot (practical distinctions) in cooking depending on whether it is on the fire or not. Halachically we call both of these a kli rishon, but there are practical distinctions. Therefore, when we say that something cooked in a pot needs hag’alah in a kli rishon, it has to be on the fire.
This is stated in the name of Avraham in the Yerushalmi, and it is also explained in the Rambam (Maimonides); see there. If so, the rule of hag’alah is, “As it is used, so is it koshered.” If it is used while standing by the fire, it must also be koshered by the fire. This is also implied by the Rambam, who wrote in Chapter Five: “Metal vessels and stone vessels that were used for chametz while boiling in a kli rishon, such as pots and pans, one places them into a large vessel of water, fills them with water, and boils them in it until the absorbed matter is released. Afterwards, one rinses them in cold water and uses them for matzah.”
Go and learn from this: he wrote about pots that one boils in them, meaning that one boils them on the fire. The Rambam clearly says it is on the fire. Therefore, it is not enough to put it next to the fire; you have to put it on the fire. That is a novel point of the Aruch Hashulchan. He makes an inference from the Rambam: “Metal vessels and stone vessels used for chametz while boiling in a kli rishon,” meaning on the fire, “such as pots and pans, one places them into a large vessel of water, fills them with water, and boils them in it.” He means on the fire. A kli rishon can also be off the fire, but whatever is on the fire, you have to boil on the fire.
But the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, in paragraph five, do not seem to say that. They write: “If its use is in a kli rishon, such as a spoon used to stir a pot, it must be koshered in a kli rishon.” That means Maran (our master) says that a ladle used to stir soup, which is a kli rishon, can be koshered in a kli rishon.
What is the inference? The ladle is sometimes used when the pot is on the fire. That is obvious; you do not always stir the soup when it is off the fire. Sometimes someone stirs it while it is on the fire. Yet he says to kosher it in a kli rishon. He did not say “a kli rishon on the fire,” or “boiling on the fire.” It sounds as though, according to Maran, I can take a pot, boil water in it, remove it from the fire, drop the ladle in, and do hag’alah.
The Levush writes explicitly, “such as a metal frying pan or a spoon”; see there. If you say that Maran holds that a kli rishon extracts even what was absorbed directly over the fire, how does he know that? How does he know that you can extract it at a lower level, even though you still call it a kli rishon? What do you call something on the fire? A kli rishon. What do you call something off the fire? A kli rishon. It sounds as though Maran is saying there is no difference and you can do hag’alah either way. The Hacham Aruch Hashulchan asks, “How does he know to say that?” At any rate, they should have explained this, since it is a novel point.
Therefore, it seems to me that, according to what we explained in Yoreh De’ah (the section on Jewish law), paragraph—section Tzadi-Chet, the Tur and the Shach did not explain the distinction there. They included both cases under the general category of kli rishon. Therefore, here too, they spoke generally. Just as over there in Yoreh De’ah, where it says kli rishon, it means on the fire, here it means on the fire. They did not go into the details, even though it is an important detail; they relied on the reader to understand what it means.
These are all novel points he is bringing in. We have to see how we are going to understand the Shulchan Aruch (The Set Table) now. He says: “This is certainly the rule: a pot or a spoon used to stir a pot cannot be koshered by hag’alah in a kli rishon unless it is standing on the fire.” Or, you can throw heated stones into the water, which also makes it like it is on the fire. Understand what the stone is doing for you? Besides causing it to overflow—which we do not know why we need to do—if you take it off the fire, you have to make it like it is on the fire. No problem: take a heated stone and drop it in. Maybe a piece of metal would work too. That item makes it like it is on the fire.
But perhaps even that only works as a kli rishon, since there is an opinion that even a kli rishon does not work. So perhaps the stone will not help; we will have to see. Accordingly, a vessel used directly on the fire must also be koshered on the fire. A vessel used in a kli rishon after it is removed from the fire must be koshered in the same way. For certain ladles, you only stir when the pot is off the fire, so you can kosher them off the fire. Our question is whether something used on the fire can be koshered off the fire, since both are technically called a kli rishon. He says no, but we will see.
A vessel used in a kli sheni, such as a spoon put into a bowl into which soup was poured from the pot, is koshered in a kli sheni (second vessel). Yishtabach shemo. Anything that is a kli sheni is koshered in a kli sheni. Is there absorption from a kli sheni? Yes, as we said yesterday. Although a kli sheni does not cook, it does cause absorption and release. So you need to kosher it in a kli sheni. For example, you take the pot of soup off the fire and pour it into a serving bowl; that is now a kli sheni. You take a serving spoon and scoop soup with wheat in it. That was a kli sheni, so you can kosher the spoon in a kli sheni.
But if its use is by iruy—pouring into it—as with a bowl into which soup is poured from the pot, it must be koshered by iruy. If an item is used by pouring into it, you kosher it by pouring onto it as well. I take the chametz and pour it into this vessel; that is iruy from a kli rishon. So you kosher it by iruy. But a kli sheni will not work. Even though the chametz was poured into this bowl and it is now a kli sheni, the way it entered was by iruy. You have to ask how it entered. It entered by iruy, so you need iruy. You cannot say, “It is in a kli sheni now, so I’ll kosher it in a kli sheni.” No. It entered by iruy, so you need iruy.
“Rabbi, all these things we’re talking about were owned and used by a non-Jew, and they’re non-kosher. You want to kosher them—” Not yet. We have not gotten to real cases. We are discussing Pesach. It is all chametz, absorbed while permitted. “Yes, that’s what I mean, for Pesach.” It has nothing to do with a non-Jew. These are your own pots, used all year with kosher food, but they have chametz in them. You cannot use a chametz pot on Pesach, so they are teaching you how to extract the chametz. Pots belonging to a Jew that contain a prohibition are coming up; that is a different law.
But hag’alah by means of a kli sheni does not work. Even if you put them in a bowl, even if the liquid there was hot enough for a hand to recoil from it. This was already explained: any vessel with cracks or something like rust that cannot be cleaned cannot be koshered by hag’alah in that place; rather, you put coals there.
Every one of these is a klal, everyone. Each vessel follows the majority of its use. Do not tell me that you made a s’more on this item once, if most of the time you do not use it directly over the fire. One use does not turn it into something that needs libun. Conversely, if you always roast something directly over the fire and one time you cooked in it, you cannot say, “I cooked in it once in February.” It follows the rov tashmisho (majority of its use). That is always the starting point for hag’alah. How is the pot used? Is it 92% this way—or not 92%, but 51% this way and 49% that way? Then you establish its use, and based on that you establish how to kosher it.
“Rabbi, what is the reasoning? If it really absorbed something that way, why would we be stringent and require libun? Libun seems like another step; it would work for hag’alah, right?” That is a fair question. How does that work? If I used it once and it absorbed something, how can I be lenient and follow the majority? It sounds as though hag’alah does not remove what was absorbed in a way that requires libun. If I used a vessel once in a way that requires libun, why would I not need libun on that vessel? Why would I use hag’alah? “But it absorbed through libun.” No, do not worry: one time is not—what is that, a three-second rule if it fell on the floor? What is this “one time is okay”? You do not have to immerse the vessel because of one use? It is a good question. We will see. He has to discuss it, Hacham Chacham Yalkut.
“Every vessel follows the majority of its use. Therefore, bowls, even though sometimes they are used with a kli rishon on the fire, such as hot foods and the like, follow their use by iruy.” Again, most of their use is by iruy from a kli rishon, so that is how they are koshered.
Some are stringent and kosher the bowls in a kli rishon because they have sometimes been used in a kli rishon. That is the minhag, and one should not change it, because an am ha'aretz (unlearned person) does not distinguish between these cases. He does not know how to apply the majority-of-use rule; he just knows that he used it once. All the more so, spoons and forks, which are often used to taste food from the pot. You cannot say a fork is used only in a kli sheni. Sometimes the spinach is still in the kli rishon, and you cut it with the fork. Therefore, they are stringent.
The minhag is also to kosher drinking vessels when they are suitable for hag’alah, even though they are used with cold things. Here come the Pesach stringencies. You drink lemonade in a glass; it is cold, but the minhag is to do hag’alah on it too. This is how Torah gets forgotten. Baruch Hashem, we are learning it, but the regular person no longer knows what is going on. You tell him to do everything, and then he thinks cold causes absorption. You lose the distinction between a stringency and the law because you tell him to do everything. “Yes, we have double sets of everything.” Nishtakchah torat hag’alah for sure. Even people who do hag’alah as a stringency may reach a point where your grandmother knew what she was doing, but now we dip glass. Why are you dipping glass? “That’s the law.” It is not the law; the reason they give is that sometimes people use those vessels for hot things. Again, “sometimes” is his explanation; it is not because of cold. Once, you might have put hot chocolate in a cup that you usually use for cold drinks. We would say, follow the majority of its use. If I used the cup for hot chocolate once and for cold water ten thousand times, you follow the ten thousand times and put it in your Pesach drawer. He says, “This is the rule, and this is the custom.” You are right: this is the minhag.
They also soak pieces of bread in them. You take a ka’ak and dip it in the pieces of bread—perhaps in hot water. So, once in a while, that somehow makes it chametz. And chavush hu kimevushal (pickled is like cooked), even with a mere rinse. We will see what pickling means.
Yud-Tet. Michael, please. How do you kosher large bowls? That is a big case. What do you do with these large industrial pots? You can use the pot for a mikveh (ritual bath); the pot is forty se’ah (biblical measure). How are you going to immerse it in another pot? Find a bigger pot? It is a good question.
He says to place a heated stone on them and pour boiling water over them from a kli rishon. With the heated stone in it, do iruy from a kli rishon. That combination is like putting it on the fire. Another question is how far you have to go; we have not seen that yet. Could you boil part of it? It does not sound as though you can boil water in it—or perhaps you can, since here he is talking about when it is not on the fire. Maybe you can just boil it on the fire. Why did he not give me that option? That would be the easiest. Wait: you have to move the stone over the entire vessel. You get the tongs and move it around. The stone is only in one spot, so you kosher that spot, then move it to the next spot, and keep moving it. “It’s already cold, the stone.” It says that even if the stone did not touch a particular place, the heat of the boiling water reached it. So the stone does not need to touch every spot.
According to the law, it needs hag’alah. That is not going to work, what I just said. Some say we do not agree with the Rema (Rabbi Moses Isserles). Who is that? The Bach. Two rabbis, same cemetery, arguing with each other. Also, if the vessel has oganayim, described as belitot, places where the stone cannot reach, it does not help.
Today, the custom is to heat many small stones in the fire, put them into the water, and then the boiling becomes very vigorous. They pour the water onto the places and move the heated stone as well. That certainly works. The water gets very hot. Then they take a boiling stone and drop it in, and the water bubbles up like a volcano. “And they pour the water on—” Yes, a couple of stones. He says small stones; it sounds like they do that. They put them into the water, the boiling becomes very vigorous, and they pour the water onto the places. It sounds like they are pouring water. They also move the heated stone. This certainly helps, even though hag’alah is required according to the law, because it is better than a kli rishon, as we can see. We will have to see how this is done. There is a way to do it with a stone for a large pot. It sounds like this is only for these large pots, not every case of hag’alah.
One more point: wood, stone, and metal vessels require hag’alah. So do vessels made of bone. What is keren? Made of horn? Maybe ivory. Some vessels cannot be properly treated with hot water because they will be ruined, and we are concerned that the person may be afraid to do it properly. The handles of knives made of horn, for example, or something attached with glue, could come apart. These are stringencies; bedi’avad, hag’alah helps. And the baskets used for salting meat—those are cold, but salting might cause absorption.
Why would the meat be chametz? Even if the meat itself is permitted, as we wrote in section Tav-Mem-Vav, perhaps there was chametz in the salt, and it became nullified before Pesach. Regarding the salt, we say it was nullified. That does not mean we say the chametz absorbed into the vessel is nullified. I do not know why—if you say the salt was nullified in the salt—what is the difference between the salt and the pot? The salt is no longer there after you clean the meat. But chametz absorbed into the pot might become active again on Pesach, so you want to remove it.
There is an opinion that disagrees and says the salting vessel does not need hag’alah. His words seem right. Nevertheless, buy a new one. Another opinion says perhaps there are holes in the vessel with actual chametz in them that you cannot remove. All this is from the outset. But after the fact, meat salted in these vessels all year may be used on Pesach, even without anything else, because salt is not presumed to contain chametz. In Yoreh De’ah, section Kuf-Heh, even if you salt something on Pesach, salt cannot extract something from a vessel. Ein melichah lehaflit (salting does not extract). Even if you want to say salting can cause absorption, the salt is like heat; still, salting does not extract, so nothing will come out anyway. Why worry? Likewise, if you salted it on the board—the wooden plank you use all year—he is telling you that bedi’avad it is acceptable.
“Does it extract the blood?” It extracts from meat, but we are discussing a vessel. Salting does not extract from a vessel; it extracts from meat. All right, let’s open the Shulchan Aruch. Open section—Taf-Nun-Alef. We have to read it, or we will never get through the section. Yesterday we covered halachot Alef, Bet, and Gimel. Now we need Daled, Heh, Vav, Zayin, and Chet.
Daled: “Vessels used directly over a flame, such as spits and griddles and the like, need libun. Libun is until sparks fly off them.” Finished. Maran says sparks. Go try to get sparks. The gloss says: “Some are lenient if it becomes hot enough that straw burns on it.” That is the Rema, who uses the straw leniency. Maran says you need sparks; the Rema says straw on the outside. “The custom follows the first opinion for anything whose law requires libun.” That is the Aruch Hashulchan’s rule: anything that requires libun according to the law, we take the stringent view that it needs libun. Anything that needs libun only as a stringency can rely on the straw.
“But something whose law requires hag’alah, except that it has cracks or we are stringent about it, is adequately treated only with this light libun.” That is the Rema’s compromise. Maran did not give you this compromise. Maran said, “Libun means sparks fly off them,” period. The Rema comes along and says you can be lenient with other types of libun, namely straw. Then the Rema says it depends: if libun is required by law, you need sparks; if it is only a stringency, you can rely on straw on the outside. “You’re saying this is Maran’s view?” No, he is saying it is the Rema’s view. The last half? It is the Rema’s view. Maran knows how to talk. A tripod grate needs libun because it is on the fire.
Heh: “Vessels used with hot things are koshered according to their use. If their use is in a kli rishon, such as a spoon used to stir a pot, they must be koshered in a kli rishon. If their use is in a kli sheni, they are koshered in a kli sheni. A vessel used by pouring from a kli rishon is not adequately koshered in a kli sheni; rather, one must pour from a kli rishon onto it.” The gloss says: “All vessels with cracks, holes, or rust inside them that one cannot clean are not koshered by hag’alah; they need libun at the crack or rust.” Where the rust is, put a coal there or do libun.
Vav: “Every vessel follows the majority of its use. Therefore, bowls, even though sometimes they are used in a kli rishon on the fire, since most of their use is by pouring over them from a kli rishon, they are koshered that way.” The Mishnah Berurah explains the reasoning of the majority-of-use rule? Majority of its use. No, he does not really give me the reasoning.
The Rema’s gloss says: “Some are stringent and kosher the bowls in a kli rishon.” That is what we saw in the Aruch Hashulchan. Even though the majority of their use is by pouring, they apply the stringency. This is the custom, and it applies to anything where there is concern that it may have been used in a kli rishon, such as spoons and similar items.
“Some are stringent and kosher drinking vessels, even though they are used with cold things, because sometimes they are used with hot things.” So there have been pourings into them. That is the custom: to do hag’alah. After the fact, rinsing is enough. Large bowls that cannot be put into a kli rishon: place a heated stone on them and pour boiling water from a kli rishon over them, so that it is like a kli rishon. The same applies to similar things. Move the stone over the entire vessel so that the whole thing is koshered.
He does not distinguish among materials for drinking vessels. We do not know whether he is talking about glass or anything else, but let’s say it is metal. He is saying: “I use it for lemonade all year, but once in a while I used it for hot chocolate, and there is chametz in there.” Finished. Ashkenazim have a real problem with this, if we need to see whether that is our minhag. If you tell me we have set aside the majority-of-use rule, and now even if you used it once the other way you have to be stringent, is that a minhag? Maran did not record this minhag. Maran gave us the rule: every vessel follows the majority of its use.
Zayin: “Some say that spoons made of horn have no remedy through hag’alah, because they are damaged by hot water, and we are concerned that the person may be afraid to treat them properly.” Good. So horn vessels should not be used, I guess. That is the law; there is no one who disagrees.
Chet: “Whether a vessel is made of wood, stone, or metal, it must be koshered through hag’alah. The same applies to vessels made of bone; they need hag’alah.” We can skip Tet for a moment. The Aruch Hashulchan said something about bone vessels? No? Okay, he says it is fine. Find boneware first, and then we can get involved.
Look at Yud: baskets used to salt meat. These are baskets, obviously with holes so the blood drips out. They are used to salt meat. Some require hag’alah. Why? The salt might have chametz in it, and the salt went into the vessel; that is the whole story. Look at the Mishnah Berurah: “Since we are not careful to buy salt that is free of chametz, perhaps there was a little chametz there, and the vessel absorbed a little taste, and then gives that taste back on Pesach.” That taste will become active again on Pesach.
There is an opinion that disagrees, and its words seem right. Maran is lenient on that as well. We do not presume our salt contains chametz in the first place. “Salt” has the same letters as “bread.” He says, “We do not presume a prohibition.” We do not have to assume it, unless you know you have a problem. If you do not, we do not presume that our kosher salt contains chametz. It is good to kosher the vessels or buy new ones.
Yishtabach shemo. Good. All right, do not lose the momentum; we are moving. That is how I have to learn a section: I have to learn the whole section first, and then we will get to the practical law.
Go back to the Aruch Hashulchan. “Could you prove it from paragraph Zayin?” Why are you slowing me down? You cannot slow me down with your questions now. First we have to learn, and then we will get all the principles. Kaf-Alef. You could read, bud. Cheilach le’orayta—use energy for the Torah. Kaf-Alef, Taf-Nun-Alef. Take your time; he knows how to find the pages.
“Regarding the frying pan, we already wrote in paragraph Yud-Gimel that hag’alah is enough, although some are stringent and require libun. The custom is to do libun from the outset, and after the fact hag’alah is enough.” A frying pan is used over the fire, I guess with liquid, but it is used with oil. We said frying is really like cooking, so hag’alah should be enough. But he said the custom is that sometimes the oil dries up, and then it is dry, so you should do libun as a stringency. That is what we said in Yud-Gimel.
Know that when a vessel is too large to do hag’alah all at once, as with a frying pan and the like, you can kosher one half first, then turn it over and kosher the other half. Yishtabach shemo. You switch it around. If the vessel is too large to kosher at once, you can do one half and then the other. You do not have to kosher the whole pot in one shot.
“Bitlat chetzyayim?” It is kosher. If it is very long, so that the middle cannot fit into the vessel used for hag’alah, do libun in the middle and hag’alah on the sides. I do not know why he tells me that. Why can’t you just do half and then the other half? It does not fit; remember? This way, then turn it. The middle still does not fit. “It’s too wide?” No, it is too big, like this. I figured that out. So what? The middle is not reached. It would be one-third at a time. “You will never get the middle.” Correct. Putting it in reaches less than half the length. So you have to do libun in the middle; put coals on that part. Good advice. “How did you cook with it if it doesn’t fit?” Unless it was used in a different way. It is a long item: it fits this way, but now you want it this way. Right. So you have to do libun in the middle. Good.
Now here is a very important principle buried in Kaf-Alef. “Someone doing hag’alah before the fifth hour can kosher a kli rishon and a kli sheni together. Likewise, vessels that absorbed a lot of chametz can be koshered together with vessels that absorbed a little chametz.” Before sha’ah chamishit (fifth halachic hour) on Erev Pesach (Passover eve), when chametz begins to become forbidden. So if you do hag’alah before that hour, when chametz is still permitted, you can be lenient about the hag’alah.
What is the leniency? You can put together an item that absorbed in a kli rishon, which is a real absorption, and an item with a lesser absorption, from a kli sheni. Why is that a leniency? This one has more chametz than that one. You will reuse the water—yes, we will see. Likewise, you can put together vessels that absorbed a lot of chametz and vessels that absorbed a little. I have a lot of chametz in one vessel and a little in another; no problem, dip them together, because at this point everything is permitted. Likewise, you can kosher the same vessel twice. Even though there is chametz in the water when you put it in again, do not worry about it.
All this does not apply when you do hag’alah after the fifth hour. The reason will be explained. There are several details. That is really in Taf-Nun-Bet, but remember this. Open Maran. Maran already has this in the halachah. Tet: Hag’alah means lehaflit—to extract; it does not simply mean putting something in hot water. Hamag’il means hamaflit, “the one who extracts.” In Hebrew, mag’il also means “disgusting,” so the joke only works if you know leshon hakodesh. “Someone doing hag’alah before the fifth hour can kosher a kli rishon and a kli sheni together, and vessels that absorbed a small amount, and he need not be concerned.” He also says you can kosher the same vessel twice. The Mishnah Berurah will probably say more; be patient. He says it will be explained later in section Taf-Nun-Bet. He is not ready to give us the principles here. He wants to wait until Taf-Nun-Bet in the Mishnah Berurah, because it is complicated; it is a whole subject.
David asked, “What is the problem? Why can’t I put a kli rishon and a kli sheni in the same pot after the fifth hour, after chametz becomes forbidden? What difference should it make?” There should not be a difference. He is going to explain. So that is halachah Tet.
Now Yud-Alef: the frying pan used for frying. Maran says, “A frying pan into which oil is poured to bake in it is permitted through hag’alah.” Why is it permitted through hag’alah? “As it absorbs, so it releases.” But what is the real reason? My question was not about that phrase. My question is: there is no water here. I did not cook it with water; I cooked with oil. That is cooking. “This is not cooking; oil is not cooking, oil is frying.” Say the reasoning of the Aruch Hashulchan: “What difference does it make whether it is oil or water?” The point is that it is liquid. It is not a decree that it must be water, like the red heifer. What difference does it make what the liquid is? The point is that it is not directly over the fire. So oil is the same as water.
Ah, but the Aruch Hashulchan (The Set Table) then said that the only time you need libun is when the oil sometimes dries up and you end up baking the bread directly over the fire. That is why he required libun. Maran has not said that yet. Maran says the frying pan into which oil is poured to bake in it is permitted through hag’alah, period.
The Mishnah Berurah says about this: some permit it because oil is poured into it; some prohibit it because oil is not included among liquids. It is permitted through hag’alah for the reason mentioned above: one bakes in it with liquid. Look at the Mishnah Berurah’s wording: “What difference does it make whether it is oil or water?” That is what the Aruch Hashulchan said. Fine. Continue.
If it is too long, what is the problem? You put it into the hag’alah pot. You put in half, turn it, and put in the other half. If it is too long for that, do libun in the middle. With any degree of libun, where straw burns, it is enough. Some are stringent and require at least this light libun for the frying pan: it is enough if straw burns on the outside. Why do they do libun on the frying pan? For the reason I just told you: sometimes the oil dries up, and then there will be a problem. They customarily do libun from the outset. However, hag’alah is enough if there are no holes in it.
The Rema goes back and forth. From the outset, do libun, but if you cannot do libun, hag’alah is acceptable. Maran seems to have clearly said that hag’alah is fine. Look at the Mishnah Berurah, paragraph Samech-Gimel: “The case requiring libun is specifically an oven in which chametz was baked without liquid.” That is a klal. Hear what he says? “Specifically, an oven in which chametz was baked without liquid needs libun.” Pure roasting. An oven-baked item or a pan in which you bake a cake is not an item for hag’alah; it needs libun.
“But not the frying pan, because we are not concerned that the oil dried up.” Maran is not concerned that the oil dried up and the chametz baked without liquid. And by the way, even if we imagine that it dried up, suppose it happened once or twice during the year. What difference does it make? We already know the klal: majority of use. What is the distinction? Which use was with water or oil? Oil. What difference does it make whether it was oil or water? Sometimes it dries up, and then it becomes like fire. What difference does it make how it got there? At the bottom line, if it was fire, it needs fire; if it was oil, it needs hag’alah.
Even if it happened once, my majority of use was with oil. What is the difference in the result? The bottom line: study this vessel. Was it used 51% of the time or 99% of the time with oil that did not burn, which really means hag’alah? Twice during the year it dried up. Kapparah, it dried up. What are you going to do? You cannot be perfect. It dried up, and therefore it was used over the fire. I know the rules: majority of use. The majority of its use was with oil that did not burn, not oil that burned.
I do not know why the Mishnah Berurah does not give me that option. He just says that we do not presume it happened. He says, “But not the frying pan; we are not concerned that the oil dried up.” And even if you are concerned, that is a concern. Ah, so that is according to their approach. We already saw in the Aruch Hashulchan that they want to dip cups too. You are right: if you follow that, then even one time would require it. But he is talking about Maran. They are going back and forth.
You will see that the Rema is concerned about this. The Rema will say that, from the outset, you should do libun on these items because perhaps the oil dried up. Some are stringent and require at least light libun on the frying pan. Why? The Mishnah Berurah says in Samech-Vav that sometimes the oil dries up and burns. Fine, “sometimes.” You see, according to their approach, “sometimes” is enough. You do not need the majority-of-use rule. The whole Rema is stringent even if it happened once, from the outset. But then he says that after the fact, hag’alah is enough.
We are talking about Maran. Why is Maran lenient and does not require libun? He is not concerned. That is why he is lenient. But they say, “Maybe it happened once,” and if it happened once, you are stuck. That is the point, everyone. Now we can go to Kaf-Bet. Tomorrow we have to start with the Aruch Hashulchan, Kaf-Bet, and Maran, Yud-Bet. We have to go to Kaf-Zayin. Good. At this pace, we will be able to finish, with Hashem’s help, Taf-Nun-Alef, then we have to do Taf-Nun-Bet, and then we will see the practical halachah.
Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya (Rabbi Chananya son of Akashya) says: “Rabbi Chananya ben Akashya omer, ratzah Hakadosh Baruch Hu lezakot et Yisrael, lefikach hirbah lahem Torah umitzvot, shene’emar: Hashem chafetz lema’an tzidko, yagdil Torah veyadir” (The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to make Israel meritorious; therefore He gave them abundant Torah and commandments, as it is said: Hashem desired, for the sake of His righteousness, to magnify the Torah and make it glorious).
Yitgadal veyitkadash shemeh raba (May His great name be magnified and sanctified). Amen. Be’alma di vera chir’uteh, veyamlich malchuteh, veyatzmach purkaneh, vikarev meshicheh (In the world He created according to His will, may He establish His kingdom, bring forth His redemption, and bring near His Messiah). Amen.
Bechayeichon uvyomeichon uvchayei dechol beit Yisrael, ba’agala uvizman kariv, ve’imru amen. Amen. Yehe shemeh raba mevarach le’alam ule’almei almaya (May His great name be blessed forever and for all eternity). Amen.
Yitbarach veyishtabach veyitpa’ar veyitromam veyitnase veyithadar veyit’aleh veyithalal shemeh dekudsha berich hu (May He be blessed, praised, glorified, exalted, elevated, honored, and lauded—the name of the Holy One, blessed be He). Berich hu. Le’ela min kol birchata veshirata, tushbechata venechemata, da’amiran be’alma, ve’imru amen. Amen.
Al Yisrael ve’al rabanan ve’al talmideihon ve’al kol talmidei talmideihon, de’askin be’orayta kadishta, di ve’atra hadein vedi vechol atar ve’atar, yehe lana ulehon ulechon china vechisda verachamei vechayei arichei umezonei revichei ufurkana min kodam Elaha marei shemaya ve’ar’a, ve’imru amen. Amen.
Yehe shelama raba min shemaya, chayei vesova vishu’ah, urfu’ah, uge’ulah, uslichah, vechaparah, verevach vehatzalah, lanu ulechol Yisrael, ve’imru amen. Amen. Oseh shalom bimromav, hu berachamav ya’aseh shalom aleinu ve’al kol Yisrael, ve’imru amen (He who makes peace in His heights, may He in His mercy make peace upon us and upon all Israel). Amen.