Beit Midrash
- Jewish Laws and Thoughts
- Jewish Laws and Customs
Is kashering keilim one of the 613 mitzvos? If it is, why don’t we recite a beracha prior to kashering, as we do when we immerse (toivel) keilim in a mikveh?
Question #2: Og versus Midyan!
Why does the Torah teach us about kashering only in parshas Matos after the Benei Yisroel conquered Midyan, and not earlier, in parshas Chukas, when we conquered Sichon and Og?
Question #3: Out with the old?
Is it preferred to kasher non-kosher and chometz-dik equipment, or is it better to replace them with brand new materials?
Foreword
The Torah assumes that when food is cooked, there is some "absorption" or residue that remains in the equipment, and that this residue imparts flavor. Therefore, anything used to cook non-kosher food must be kashered before it may be used for kosher. To the Benei Yisroel in the desert, this meant that the spit or gridiron grates recently "acquired" from the Midyanites had to be kashered. As a matter of fact, Rabbi Akiva (Pesachim 44b) understands that we derive the halachic concept (that residue of non-kosher is prohibited) from the pesukim in parshas Matos referring to the equipment of the Midyanim: Concerning the gold and the silver, the copper, the iron, the tin and the lead: any item that was used in fire needs to be placed in fire to become pure [meaning "kosher"]. In addition, it must be purified in a mikveh. And that which was not used in fire must pass through water (Bamidbar 31:22-23).
This posuk introduces the concept of kashering and toiveling vessels. Rashi on the posuk explains some of the basics of the kashering procedure: that which cooked non-kosher directly in the fire, such as a barbecue spit or roasting tray, must be kashered by direct fire – what we call libun; placing such a treif piece of equipment into boiling water (hag’alah) is not sufficient to kasher it. This is because there is a hierarchy of kashering, called ke’bol’o kach polto – the same way a vessel absorbed a non-kosher substance is the way we must use to kasher it. Hag’alah will remove sufficiently what was absorbed by cooking, but it will not remove adequately what was absorbed through grilling (Taz, Yoreh Deah 121:7; see Pri Megadim, end of Orach Chayim 452 in Mishbetzos Zahav).
The statement of Rashi quoted above also mentions that a utensil that became non-kosher because it was used with hot water on the fire, such as a pot, can be kashered by hag’alah. The word hag’alah means to expel. In the book of Iyov, it says, "Their houses are safe, without fear, and no punishment from G-d is upon them. Their bulls impregnate their cows without miscarrying (ve’lo yag’il)" (Iyov 21:9-10). The Hebrew word yag’il that I have translated as miscarrying has the same root, gimel, ayin, lamed as the word hag’alah. Rashi, there in Iyov, explains at length that this root means to expel and notes, among his several proofs, the Mishnah’s use of the word hag’alah to mean to expel or extract the non-kosher residue by use of boiling water. By the way, the same root can also bear the meaning disgust and disgusting, something that you want to "expel from yourself." All of these words, miscarry, expel, extract and disgust carry the same basic concept.
Nosein taam lifgam
Before analyzing our opening questions, we need to discuss some more details of our topic. The Gemara quotes a dispute between tana’im regarding the following question: At times, the residual flavor that a food provides is nosein taam lifgam, which means that the taste is unappetizing. There is a dispute concerning a non-kosher item that provides an unappetizing flavor into kosher food, as to whether this distaste renders the food non-kosher: Rabbi Meir contends that, since the Torah required the Benei Yisroel to kasher whatever equipment was acquired from the Midyanites, all residual flavor is prohibited, whether or not it is tasty. Rabbi Shimon disagrees, contending that the Torah prohibited only the appetizing flavor of non-kosher substances, but the consumption of a kosher food containing an unappetizing non-kosher flavor is permitted (Avodah Zarah 67b).
Eino ben yomo
The Gemara states that the absorbed residual flavor remaining in a pot usually provides a good taste only the same day the food was prepared, in Hebrew called ben yomo. Afterward, the taste spoils and becomes nosein taam lifgam.
Midyan impact
This dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon regarding nosein taam lifgam has a direct impact on how they understand the posuk =regarding Midyanite equipment, and an indirect impact on our opening question. According to Rabbi Shimon, the Torah required kashering the utensils acquired from Midyan only for those who wanted to use this equipment on the same day that they had been used for treif. Any utensils that were not used until they were no longer benei yomam were not included in the Torah’s commandment. In Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, food prepared in a non-kosher pot when it is eino ben yomo is kosher (Avodah Zarah 75b; Rambam, Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 17:2; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 103:5; 122:6). In his opinion, the requirement to kasher equipment used for non-kosher, when it is now only nosein taam lifgam (because it is more than a day since it was used for non-kosher), is a gezeirah miderabbanan. Chazal forbade using an eino ben yomo pot because of concern that one may make a mistake and use it when it is still ben yomo (Avodah Zarah 76a).
On the other hand, according to Rabbi Meir, nosein taam lifgam is prohibited, and, therefore, using einan benei yomam equipment is prohibited min haTorah – or, more accurately, the food prepared in einan benei yomam equipment is prohibited min haTorah.
How do we rule?
The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 65b) rules that nosein taam lifgam is permitted, and this is also the conclusion of the Gemara in several places (Avodah Zarah 36a, 38b, 39b, and 65b=) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 103:1-2). In other words, the Torah did not prohibit an unappetizing flavor, even when its source is non-kosher.
Beracha on Kashering
Let us now address our opening question: Is kashering keilim one of the 613 mitzvos? If it is, why don’t we recite a beracha prior to kashering them? After all, immediately prior to immersing utensils that we are obligated to toivel, one recites a beracha, Asher kideshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al tevilas keilim. Yet, prior to kashering treif equipment, no beracha is recited, which is strange, since we derive these halachos from the same posuk.
The answer is that birchos hamitzvos are recited prior to performing a positive mitzvah of the Torah, such as tefillin, mezuzah, sukkah, shofar, etc. Similarly, tevilas keilim is understood to be a positive mitzvah, and therefore we recite a beracha prior to immersing them. However, there is no mitzvas aseih, positive mitzvah, to remove the non-kosher parts of an animal, the cheilev and the gid ha’na’she. Similarly, there is no positive mitzvah of the Torah to soak and salt meat. In our case, there is no positive mitzvah to remove forbidden residue from untensils. In all these instances, we are merely removing a forbidden substance -- blood, cheilev, gid hana’she, or non-kosher residue -- and since we are performing an act whose purpose is to avoid violating a prohibition, rather than a positive act, we do not recite a beracha. Since authorities do not count kashering non-kosher utensils as a positive mitzvah, we do not recite a beracha prior to performing this activity (Kenesses Hagedolah, Hagahos Tur 121:13, quoted by Darkei Teshuvah, 121:1).
Introducing the Semak
Although none of our standard mitzvah-counting authorities (Behag, Rambam, Semag, Ramban, Sefer Hachinuch) list a mitzvah of kashering, one of the late baalei Tosafos, Rav Yitzchak of Corbeille (France), does mention a mitzvah of kashering equipment in his work known as the Semak, which stands for Sefer Mitzvos Katan. As we will soon see, this is presumably not a dispute among authorities, but a difference in the goal of a sefer.
Rav Yitzchak of Corbeille is virtually always referred to by the initials "Semak," similar to the way that the Chofetz Chayim and Chazon Ish are called by the names of their works. However, in the Semak’s case, this is unusual, since he did not give this name to his sefer; he called it Amudei Golah, a name that today is used for the book only on its title page and, sometimes, on its cover.
The Semak was very concerned about the fact that Jews were scattered about, often in towns with very small Jewish populations, and that, without seforim, they would forget much halacha. To help people remember the basic mitzvos and halachos, he wrote a work that he called Amudei Golah, meaning that it would provide a foundation for the Jews dispersed throughout the exile. He divided Amudei Golah into seven sections, according to the days of the week. In his introduction, he instructs communities:
"Because of unfortunate circumstances, the Torah is being forgotten, and I am concerned that many people do not sufficiently know the mitzvos that they are obligated to observe. Therefore, I wrote the mitzvos that apply in our days in seven pages, for the seven days of the week. I request that each person read one page each day… and each day, he should study, in detail, two or three mitzvos." He then instructs how each town, upon receiving a copy of the sefer, should hire a copyist to write it over, so that the town will have a copy. He even explains that community funds may be used for this purpose and sets a price for hiring the copyist, ruling that a community meeting or communal leader does not need to authorize spending community funds to hire a copyist to create a local copy of Amudei Golah.
Although not a "bestseller," because its author didn’t charge for it the Semak became a very popular sefer. It was, indeed, copied over frequently enough such that, to this day, numerous manuscripts of it are available in archives and libraries around the world. Frequently, either while it was copied for local use, or afterward, notes would be added including references or other sources, or reflecting local customs that were different from what the Semak had ruled. These miscellaneous comments and notes are often called Hagahos Semak.
The most famous of the various Hagahos Semak versions is authored by Rav Pesach of Corbeille, also one of the late baalei Tosafos. Recently, a lengthier addition of Hagahos Semak, authored by Rav Moshe of Zurich, was published, after languishing in manuscript form for many hundreds of years.
Semak counts
I found in Encyclopedia Talmudis and in other reference sources the observation that, although none of the works that lists mitzvos count kashering keilim as a mitzvah, the Semak is an exception and does list kashering as a mitzvah. In my opinion, this statement is both accurate and inaccurate – or more correct, misleading -- at the same time. Allow me to explain.
The Semak makes no attempt to count or identify what are the 613 mitzvos. In his sefer, he lists many mitzvos that are not counted by others. For example, he counts burying the dead, not to be a tzadik in one’s own eyes, circumcising our hearts, accepting that whatever Hashem does is for our best, visiting the sick, doing chesed, being tzanua, kashering and toiveling dishes. In all likelihood, he was not deciding whether these are mitzvos that should be counted in the list of Taryag, but was looking for the opportunity to include these halachos and hashkafah attitudes in order to educate the scattered Jews of the Exile. Reading his introduction, it is quite clear that his interest was not in determining how mitzvos are counted or which are included in Taryag, a topic to which all the above-mentioned mitzvah counters -- the Behag, Rav Saadiya, the Rambam, the Semag and the Chinuch -- were devoted. The Semak’s goal was to provide an easy-to-read, inexpensive guidebook to basic halacha to every community of Jews scattered throughout the diaspora. In other words, he was an Ashkenazi guidebook of the rishonim-era. As such, he did not include any mitzvos that apply only in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, and did not include any mitzvos that apply only in Eretz Yisroel.Thus, I conclude that the Semak would not rule that we should recite a beracha prior to kashering keilim, notwithstanding his including it in his work. I think his including it is not indicative of his counting it as a positive mitzvah; it is simply an important halacha that had to be included in his guidebook.
Og versus Midyan!
At this point, let us examine the second of our opening questions: Why does the Torah teach us about kashering only in parshas Matos, after the Jews conquered Midyan, and not in parshas Chukas when we conquered Sichon and Og?
This question is asked already by the Ramban, in his commentary to parshas Matos (Bamidbar 31:23). There, he provides an interesting answer: based on a posuk in parshas Va’eschanan (Devarim 6:11), the Gemara (Chullin 17a) explains that at the time that the Jews conquered Eretz Yisroel, they were permitted to eat whatever they found, even items so obviously non-kosher as bacon strips, a loose translation of koslei (or kadlei, there are two girsa’os) dechazira. Thus, for those who really want to eat shrimp, lobster and pork without any kashrus violation, we have an interesting solution: supply your friend the Canaanite with whatever non-kosher you want to eat, and make sure it is still in his house when you conquer his city!
The Ramban explains that this heter applied when they conquered Sichon and Og, since this was part of the conquest of Eretz Yisroel, and, therefore, the laws regarding kashering pots did not apply. If they were permitted to eat the non-kosher meat itself without any reservation, the equipment used to cook it certainly remained kosher. However, the Ramban explains, this heter did not apply to Midyan, because their land was not part of Eretz Yisroel, nor was it going to become part of Eretz Yisroel.
Notwithstanding that this is the Ramban’s answer to the question, there are numerous difficulties with this approach. For one, the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 8:1) holds that the heter permitting koslei dechazira applies only when you are hungry, while fighting the war. Otherwise, there is no blanket heter to eat koslei dechazira. At the time that the Jews conquered the lands of Sichon and Og, they were receiving the manna to eat, so it appears that they would have no reason to eat non-kosher. Furthermore, even if they had such a heter, once the conquest is over, the acquired treif pots, grills and other equipment should now require kashering, so we still do not know why the Torah delayed instructing how to kasher until the conquest of Midyan!
There are other ways to explain why the Torah did not teach the laws of kashering after the Benei Yisroel had conquered Sichon and Og. Tosafos answers that they destroyed Sichon in the field, and there were no household pots there (Daas Zekeinim Mibaalei Hatosfos 31:23). Presumably, by the time they bespoiled the cities, 24 hours had passed since these pots and other utensils had been last used for cooking. And, as we saw above, according to Rabbi Shimon, the entire discussion of kashering the keilim was only if they wanted to use them when they were still benei yomam. However, when the Benei Yisroel conquered Midyan, they invaded the towns and homes directly, so their conquest of the equipment was within 24 hours of last use for non-kosher food.
A similar answer is based on the Midrash that, during the conquest of Sichon and Og, Hashem kept the sun in place for 24 hours, to allow Benei Yisroel to complete the rout. This means that by the time the Benei Yisroel had bespoiled their cities, the nations of Sichon and Og had been on the run for more than a day and nothing had been used for the last 24 hours. Thus, there was no requirement min haTorah to kasher any equipment (Or Chodosh, Pesachim 44b).
Out with the old!
At this point, let us discuss the third of our opening questions: Is it preferred to kasher non-kosher and chometz-dik equipment, or is it better to replace them with new, kosher materials?
Since there is no mitzvas aseih to kasher equipment, perhaps it is preferred to purchase new, rather than kasher. We could seemingly demonstrate a proof that this law is true from the following story in the Gemara:
"Ravina said to Rav Ashi: ‘How do you kasher knives for Pesach?’ Rav Ashi answered: ‘I have them make me new knives.’ To this Ravina retorted, ‘You have that option, since you have the means. What should someone do who does not have the means’ (Pesachim 30b)?"
At this point, Rav Ashi describes the correct kashering procedure. We see from the discussion that those who have the means should purchase new items that have never absorbed chometz, rather than kasher chometz-dik utensils. By the same logic, it would seem that it is preferred to purchase new cutlery and similar appliances that became treif, rather than kashering non-kosher equipment.However, the logic does not necessarily have to follow, since, in the case of utensils that became treif, the treif items would have to be disposed of if you do not kasher them. On the other hand, a pot or knife that is not fit for Pesach use can be used during the year. Remember that Yaakov Avinu returned to his previous campsite for some small, used earthenware vessels. When the alternative is disposal, the Torah’s approach is concerned even for small losses. Therefore, someone who is uncertain whether to kasher used equipment when he can readily afford new should ask his own rav or posek what to do.
Conclusion
This article has provided a small introduction to some of the ideas of kashering. We now have a bit of an understanding concerning a complicated halachic issue that has all sorts of ramifications. One should be aware how much one’s rav or posek must keep in mind every time he answers one of our inquiries. Certainly, this is a time to appreciate his scholarship and his making himself available to us, wheneverwe need him. We should always hope and pray that the food we eat fulfills all the halachos that the Torah commands us.
This Shiur is published also at <a href="http://rabbikaganoff.com" target="_new"
rel="nofollow">Rabbi Kaganof's site</a>
History of a Calendrical Dispute – and its Resolution
Rabbi Shlomo Hecht | 2 Shvat 5785
Mechayei Hameitim after Long Separation
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Nissan 26 5782
Flying High - A Traveler’s Guide to Channukah
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Kislev 5768
