Siman 451

Earthenware pots, or earthenware bowls and pans, in which one used chametz all year, even those in which one makes porridge and types of flour, which are entirely chametz and stick around the pot—one scrubs them well in a manner that the chametz is not visible in them, and it is permitted to keep them until after Pesach, to use them whether for its own kind or for a different kind. And it is not similar to chametz that was mixed, which is forbidden to keep as I wrote in siman 447, for there the chametz is present but not recognizable. This is not the case here: the chametz is absorbed in the vessel and is not visible. Furthermore: the absorbed matter becomes a spoiled taste after twenty-four hours. And even though on Pesach itself we forbid a spoiled taste, as I wrote in siman 447, nevertheless after Pesach, where the prohibition is only due to a penalty—they did not forbid it. And even though regarding all other prohibitions we forbid the pot even after twenty-four hours, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 122, and there is no difference between a Torah law and a rabbinic law, for even a vessel that absorbed poultry and milk, which is rabbinic, we also forbid it, nevertheless regarding chametz they do not forbid the pot. And the reason can be said: for chametz absorbed a permitted substance, since at the time of the absorption, it was not a prohibition. This is not the case there, where it absorbed a prohibited substance. Furthermore: there it is an occasional occurrence, but chametz occurs every year, and it is impossible to cause the loss of all the pots in the world. (See Tosafot 30a, starting with the words "And let us keep them," and in the Ran ibid. And they wrote according to Rav who ruled like Rabbi Yehuda, but we hold like Rabbi Shimon.)

There is one who wrote that even though on Pesah itself if one cooked in a pot that was not ben yomo—they forbid the cooked food, as I wrote in siman 447, nevertheless, if twelve months passed over the pot from the time of the cooking of the hametz—its flavor has already been completely dissipated, and the cooked food is permitted (Chacham Tzvi siman 75). And the proof is from wine used for idolatry, where aging for twelve months is effective, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 138. However, in the Responsa of the Rashba (siman 575) he wrote explicitly that it is not so, and this is his wording: A pot that is not ben yomo in which one cooked… for the vessel remains in its forbidden state. And it is simple that aging is only effective for wine vessels… Thus far his words. Therefore, one should not rely on this (see Sha’arei Teshuva subsection 1). But one may join it to some other leniency if there is one in this matter.

And these chametz vessels, one hides them during Pesach in a secluded place where he is not accustomed to go, so that he does not come to use them during Pesach. It is good to lock them in a room and hide the key. There are those who place these vessels high on the walls, where the hand cannot reach. And there is one of the great authorities who cried out against this, and brought proof from studying before a lamp on Shabbat, which is forbidden even at a height of two stories (Bach). There is no proof from this, for there the concern is lest he tilt it, and come to a Torah prohibition. This is not the case here regarding a light rabbinic prohibition, for they are not "of their day," there is no proof to forbid. And all the more so regarding vessels whose use is as a second vessel (Magen Avraham subsection 2). Therefore, according to the law one should not protest, and one who is stringent, may a blessing come upon him.

And the sages said (30b) that earthenware vessels alone are such that hagala is not effective for them, for even libun is not effective. And even if one fills them with coals, which would certainly expel the forbidden substance – it is not effective. And the reason: for we fear perhaps he will spare them so that they do not burst, and he will reduce the coals, and will not perform the heating properly. Therefore, no heating that he heats them with fire is effective for them, nor for any earthenware vessel in which one used hot substances, even if not by means of fire but rather that he poured boiling liquids into it, for even iruy causes much absorption in an earthenware vessel. As it is stated in Zevachim (95b) on the verse, "And every earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken" – I only have a case where one cooked in it; from where do I know if one poured boiling liquid into it? The Torah says: "in which... shall be broken," see there. And some forbid even in a kli sheni, meaning that one poured from the pot into a kli sheni, and afterwards placed this vessel into it. And this is according to the opinion of the Rambam in the fifth chapter (according to the opinion of the Maggid Mishneh and the Beit Yosef). But the opinion of the Tur is not so. And some say that even the Rambam does not hold so, and his intention refers to iruy from a kli rishon (Magen Avraham, subsection 3). However, the Rashba holds that even regarding all forbidden substances a kli sheni forbids, and therefore the custom is to be stringent with a kli sheni regarding chametz as with a kli rishon (ibid.). But regarding a kli shlishi, one should not be stringent post facto.

Regarding that which was explained that heating does not avail for earthenware vessels, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 1, and this is his wording: However, if one returned it to the kiln in which they fire new earthenware vessels – it is permitted, for since he brings them into such a great heating – he certainly is not concerned for them lest they burst. But for our ovens – no. Thus far his words, for there is reason to fear lest he be concerned for them, and remove them from the oven before they become white-hot (Taz subsection 2 in the name of the Rosh). And specifically earthenware vessels, but metal vessels which do not burst from the fire – one may fill them with coals from within (Tur), and leave the coals there until if a person touches the outer side of the vessel – the hand would recoil from it because the vessel became heated from the coals. For then certainly all the chametz absorbed within it is burnt even though it did not become so white-hot that sparks fly from it, for metal vessels are rendered fit through hagalah, and this light libun is no worse than hagalah, and it is rendered fit thereby (the Gra"z section 10).

And know that among us now, we use pots of a type of metal and call them "Preussische Töpfe," and they are of metal, and they have a certain type of coating on the inside, and it is the custom to burn the chametz pots for Pesach. There are those who are not comfortable with this, because it is known that they can burst. But in truth, there is no concern in this for several reasons: First, we do not find this concern in the Gemara except regarding earthenware vessels. Furthermore, their libun is as follows: they place them near the inner walls of the oven, and place many logs into the oven, and fill the pots with ash and heat the oven, and the pots remain for twenty-four hours and more until they cool. And their nature is that if they are removed from the oven before they cool—they will break. And the libun is like in a kiln, and consequently here there is no concern that they will burst, for we have explained that this concern is lest one remove them from the oven before they are heated, and here, on the contrary, they are careful not to remove them even after they are heated until they cool completely, for if not so, they burst. Furthermore: since hagalah is sufficient for them, consequently one need not be so concerned about the libun, for however it is—it is not worse than hagalah.

And for an oven, it is obvious that libun is effective, not like the one who is stringent in this based on the words of the Tosafot, who wrote that for an oven even returning it to the kilns is not effective (Bach). And it is not so, for that is regarding the matter of ritual impurity and purity, that if it were impure—it is not purified by this. But it is not so regarding the matter of forbidden and permitted (Magen Avraham subsection 4), for in the Gemara they said that this is why filling with coals is not effective for a pot, because a pot is always heated from the outside, see there. But an oven—is it not heated from the inside? And aside from this, our ovens are not similar to their ovens, which is the oven written in the Torah, for that is small and portable, and it is like a type of pot. But our ovens are like an actual building, and it is obvious that libun is effective.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 2: A kubya, which is a vessel made from bricks and earth in which they bake and fry, and similarly a small oven called a fidli"a that was heated from the outside—it is forbidden to bake in it on Pesach, for the chametz within it is not expelled in this manner. But if he filled it with coals from the inside—it is permitted. Thus far his words, for in this case the concern "perhaps they will burst" does not apply, since it is made of bricks and earth (Taz, subsection 4). And a kubya made from bricks fired in a kiln—they have the full status of a clay vessel, for its manufacture is exactly like a clay vessel except that it is very thick, and if a boiling substance was spilled upon it—it has no remedy except through libun (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And these vessels are not known to us. A brick that was dried in the sun—it has the status of an earthen vessel (ibid.). And it is written in the Tur that the opinion of Rav Hai Gaon is that vessels of dung and vessels of stone—their status is like clay vessels, and hagalah is not effective for them, only libun. However, the Rif disagreed with him, and ruled that they are like wooden vessels and metal vessels, and hagalah is effective for them, and such is the primary ruling (Tur). And our kachlin—we fill them with many coals and they are rendered fit for Pesach.

And know that new pots purchased from a non-Jew, and likewise all types of vessels purchased from them, whether of earthenware, metal, or glass, as long as he sells them in the market and they appear new—we need not concern ourselves that perhaps they were used, for those standing for sale are not used. However, regarding vessels in his house—one should only take a new vessel that is certainly with him such that it was not used. But when there is a doubt—one should not take it unless he speaks incidentally, and says that it has not yet been used. And regarding glass vessels, there is room to permit even without speaking incidentally, if they appear clear and new such that they were not used (the Harav, of blessed memory, section 5). And glass vessels in which one drinks hot liquids—it follows that no prohibition enters it except for hot water and sugar. And the proof: for behold we drink from them when we are with them, as it is known that every glass vessel designated for drinking hot liquids—one does not use it for anything else, and only for Pesach should one not purchase it. And likewise, one does not drink hot liquids with them on Pesach, because occasionally they soak toasted bread in them. But during the rest of the year—there is no concern, for even if perhaps by chance something else entered there—we follow the majority of its use.

Knives of chametz, according to the essential law—they are like all vessels whose use is with heat, and require hagalah in a keli rishon. Nevertheless, as a measure of piety, one should apply some additional stringency to knives, because their use is frequent with chametz, and they contain cracks that are not noticeable. Furthermore, there are times when one sticks pieces of bread on its tip to bake over the fire, or cuts a pashtida that is over the fire, and it requires libun, just as some require libun for prohibited knives for such a reason, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 121. Therefore, one who is able to make new ones—this is praiseworthy. And one for whom it is impossible—he should perform libun on the iron in fire, and the handle in boiling water. And if even this is difficult, such as if the iron would be ruined or the like—he should perform hagalah on all of it in boiling water, for we follow its majority use, and its majority use is with boiling water, as he cuts hot chametz. And if the handle is of wood, and attached with small nails—there is one who says that hagalah is not effective, for there are pits there (Bach). And it is naught but a mere stringency. And we are accustomed that when the iron is well-connected to the handle, and there are no cracks between them—we perform hagalah on it. And one must remove the rust from it. (I saw in Ateret Zekenim, letter 1, that one should not place anything on the winter-house oven, and likewise on the kachlin. And even if one plasters it with clay the thickness of a finger—some prohibit and some permit. Thus far his words. And it is obvious that if one places burning coals in the kachlin it is permitted. And on the winter-house oven that they call a lizanka, which is very large, they use it by means of a clay plaster according to the opinion of the one who permits. And if they place a new board upon it—it is simple that it is permitted to use it there on Pesach. And on the oven when they use it there all year—one should not use it there on Pesach, for there it is difficult to perform a kashering. And see in section 44.)

Any vessel that requires libun or hagalah—it is forbidden to use it even for cold food without kashering. If one used it in a temporary manner—it is permitted ex post facto, if it was clean or if he rinsed it beforehand. And anything that requires libun, and one performed hagalah without libun, and used it for boiling food—it is forbidden even ex post facto, because it did not expel everything through the hagalah, and as long as one uses it—it expels little by little (Chayei Adam, subsection 10). And the sheath of knives, which is a case into which they insert the knives all year—hagalah is of no use for it, because it is impossible to clean it well from the actual chametz that is stuck to it. Therefore, on Pesach one should not insert the knives into it. And if he wants to open the stitches and scrape it very well, even hagalah is not necessary (the Gra"z, section 23), for there was never hot usage in it.

Hagalah in a kli rishon is defined as a vessel that was heated by the fire; even though it has now been removed from the fire—it is called a kli rishon as long as the hand recoils from it. And every vessel, prior to its hagalah—one must remove all rust that is upon it. And a knife, when there is rust upon it—one must rub it well with a whetstone or a stone. And a knife or other vessel that has pits in it, and one cannot clean it well—hagalah is of no use for it, and it requires libun at the location of the pits. And this means to place burning coals there. And specifically rust that has substance. But mere blackness, or redness like in kettles and pans, where even after the removal of the rust the mark remains—we have no concern with it. For if not so, you would find almost no vessel that you could perform hagalah upon (Taz, subsection 6).

Vessels that are used by means of fire without water, such as spits and grills upon which one roasts over the fire and the like—require libun. Hagalah will not avail them, for that which absorbs by means of water, such as cooking, emits by means of water. But that which absorbs by means of fire will not emit by means of water, but rather by means of fire. Therefore, the pans in which one bakes bread or pastida require libun. However, the frying pan in which one fries bread with fat or oil or butter is like cooking, and hagalah is sufficient. For what is the difference to me between water and what is the difference to me between fat? And even though the fat is much less than the water in a pot, behold, there is no fixed measure for the matter. And some say that one must perform libun on the frying pan, because sometimes the fat dries up, and the dough is baked upon the pan. However, a light libun is sufficient, and it is sufficient when straw is burnt upon it from the outside. And the custom is to perform libun on it ab initio. Nevertheless, if they performed hagalah on it, it is sufficient ex post facto if it has no pits. And we do not trouble him to perform libun on it afterward, for such is the primary law, that hagalah is sufficient. And see in section 52.

Complete libun is until sparks fly from it. And there are those who are lenient to say that it is sufficient until straw is burnt upon it from the outside. And specifically regarding chametz, since it absorbed a permitted substance—some say that such a libun is sufficient. And some hold that chametz is called "absorbed a prohibited substance," for the name chametz is called a prohibition regarding Pesach even before Pesach (see Magen Avraham subsection 11 and Taz subsection 8). And the custom is according to the first opinion. However, this is regarding something that certainly requires libun. But something that we only act stringently to perform libun upon, like a frying pan and the like, or if there are cracks or pits or rust in the vessel for which we required libun—a light libun as we explained is sufficient. And the trivet, which is a vessel that has three legs upon which the pot is placed—requires libun, for sometimes [substance] spills from the pot onto it. And if there is a kind of dough in the pot, and a piece of dough spills—behold, this is like a spit, and requires libun. However, it seems that a light libun, where straw is burnt from the outside, is sufficient.

Every kashering is according to its use: if its use is in a kli rishon, such as a spoon with which one stirs in a pot, and likewise a vessel with which one scoops from a kli rishon (Chayei Adam subsection 27) – one must kasher them in a kli rishon. And know that it seemingly appears clear that that which its use is by means of the fire, such as a pot in which one cooks – hagalah in a kli rishon is not effective, but specifically upon the fire. For it has already been clarified above in siman 318 that a kli rishon is a lower level than that which stands next to the fire, and that this is explained in the Yerushalmi and is likewise explained from the Rambam, see there. And if so, since regarding hagalah the rule is "as is their use, so is their kashering," if so, when their use is by means of its standing next to the fire – the kashering requires the same. And this is implied from the language of the Rambam, who wrote in the fifth chapter, law 23: Metal vessels and stone vessels in which one used chametz with boiling liquids in a kli rishon, such as pots and pans – one places them into a large vessel of water, and fills it with water, and boils them within it until they emit. And afterwards he rinses them in cold water and uses them for matzah. Thus far his words. Behold, he wrote regarding pots that "one boils them within it," meaning: one boils them upon the fire.

But from the words of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 5, it does not imply so, as they wrote: If their use is in a kelli rishon, such as a spoon with which one stirs in a pot – one must kasher them in a kelli rishon. Thus far their words. Now, the spoon's use is while the pot is on the fire, and the kashering is in a kelli rishon. And the Levush wrote explicitly: such as a metal pot or a spoon, see there. And if we were to say that he holds that a kelli rishon extracts even what was absorbed by way of fire, from where do we have this to say so? In any event, they should have explained this. Therefore, it appears to me that according to what we explained in Yoreh Deah siman 68 and above in siman 318 – the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch did not descend to explain the difference between this and that, and they included everything in the term "kelli rishon." Therefore, here too, such is their intention. And for the halacha, hagalah in a kelli rishon certainly does not avail for a pot, or a spoon with which one stirred the pot, but rather while it stands on the fire. Or as when one places glowing stones into the water, which is also like being on the fire, as will be explained. However, it is possible that even this is only like a kelli rishon, for behold, there is one who holds that it is not even like a kelli rishon (Bach, cited by the Magen Avraham subsection 18).

And according to this, a vessel whose use is over the fire—its kashering is also by means of the fire. And a vessel whose use is in a kli rishon after it was removed from the fire—its kashering is also thus. And a vessel that was used in a kli sheni, for example, if one inserted a spoon into a bowl into which one poured from the pot—its kashering is in a kli sheni. And a vessel whose use is through pouring, such as a bowl into which one pours from the pot—its kashering is by means of pouring from a kli rishon, but by means of a kli sheni it is not effective, and that is to say, to place them in a bowl even if the hand shrinks from it (see Taz, subsection 9, for he also was not precise between by means of the fire and a kli rishon). And it has already been explained that any vessel that has cracks or pits or rust, in a manner that it is impossible to scrape them and clean them—hagalah is not effective in that place, but rather to place coals upon that place.

Regarding every vessel, one follows its majority usage. Therefore, bowls, even though they are sometimes used with a kli rishon on the fire, nevertheless, since their majority usage is with iruy poured upon them from a kli rishon—such is their method of kashering. There are those who are stringent to perform hagalah even for bowls in a kli rishon, and such is the widespread custom and one should not deviate, for the masses do not distinguish between one and the other. This certainly applies to spoons and forks, which are many times inserted into the pot. And the custom is to be stringent even regarding all drinking vessels, when they are fit for hagalah to perform hagalah on them, even though they are used with cold liquids, because sometimes they are used with hot liquids. Furthermore, one soaks bread crumbs in them for twenty-four hours, and kavush is like cooked. However, post facto, a mere rinsing suffices for them, as I wrote in section 49, see there.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 6, that large bowls which one cannot fit inside a kli rishon—one should place upon them a white-hot stone, and pour upon them boiling water from a kli rishon, and this is like a kli rishon. And so too regarding anything similar to this. And he should pass the stone over the entire vessel, for then he performs hagalah on all of it. Thus far his words. And even if perhaps in some place the stone did not touch—the boiling water touched there. And there is one who says that it is not like a kli rishon, and it is not effective for a matter that by law requires hagalah (Magen Avraham subsection 18 in the name of the Bach). And so too if there are rims or protrusions on the vessel, such that it is impossible to pass the stone there—this is not effective (ibid.). And now the custom is to heat small stones in a large fire, and they place them in the water, and then the boiling increases greatly, and they pour the water over the places, and they also pass the white-hot stone. And this is certainly effective even in a place that requires hagalah by law, for it is superior to a kli rishon, as our eyes see.

Whether a wooden vessel, or a stone vessel, or a metal vessel, or a bone vessel—their law is to render them fit through hagalah. And there is one who says that spoons made of horn have no remedy through hagalah, for since they are damaged by hot water, we fear perhaps he will spare them and not perform hagalah on them properly. And so too the handles of knives that are made partially of horns, and so too if the handle is attached with glue—he will spare it lest it split. And it seems to me that all of these are stringencies, and after the fact, hagalah is effective. And baskets in which they salt meat— some require hagalah for them. And even though the meat itself is permitted, as I wrote in siman 447—this is because even if there were a bit of chametz in the salt, it was nullified before Pesach. However, regarding the vessel, nullification is not applicable (ibid. subsection 20). And there is one who disagrees, that they do not require hagalah, and his words appear correct. Nevertheless, it is good to perform hagalah, or to buy a new one. And there is one who says that hagalah is not effective at all, for perhaps there is actual chametz in the holes (Taz subsection 15). And all of this is initially, but after the fact, if they salted on Pesach in baskets in which they salted all year—it is permitted even without any rendering of fitness, for the salt is not presumed to contain chametz. Furthermore, salting does not cause vessels to emit, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 105 (Magen Avraham ibid.). And so too if they soaked the meat in the soaking vessel of the whole year, and rinsed them even after the salting in that same vessel—it is permitted, and there is no concern in the matter. And so too if they salted on the board upon which they salt all year.

And regarding a pan, we have already written in section 13 that hagalah is sufficient, and only some are stringent to require libun. And that the custom is to perform libun initially, but after the fact, hagalah is sufficient. And know that regarding any hagalah where it is not possible to perform hagalah on the entire vessel at once because of its size, such as a pan and its like—one may perform hagalah first on its one half and afterwards turn it over and perform hagalah on its second half. And if it is very long such that the middle does not enter the vessel of the hagalah—one performs libun in the middle, and on its sides one performs hagalah. And one who performs hagalah before the fifth hour—may perform hagalah on a kli rishon and a kli sheni together, and likewise vessels that absorbed much chametz with vessels that absorbed a little chametz. And likewise, one may perform hagalah on the vessel two times. And all this is not the case when one performs hagalah after the fifth hour, and the reason for the matter will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 452. And there are several details in this, see there.

All the handles of all vessels require hagalah. And this is not because it also absorbs from the chametz, for it does not conduct its absorption throughout its entirety, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 121. Furthermore: if it does conduct—as it absorbs, so it expels. Rather, the reason is that certainly the handle received some taste of chametz during the course of the year, and now on Pesach matzah will touch it. However, if they did not perform hagalah on the handles—one should not forbid it post facto, for it is merely a concern. Nevertheless, the spoon must necessarily have hagalah performed on all of it, for many times it descends entirely into the pot, and even post facto it is a hindrance. And so too regarding a knife, one should be stringent post facto, since in the Gemara (30b) they required the koshering of the handle—we should not be lenient (Taz subsection 17). However, this is certain, that it is sufficient for their koshering to be by means of iruy that one pours over the handles, for their absorption is not even like iruy, as is understood. And there is one who says that post facto is specifically when one already used it, but if one did not use it—it is forbidden even post facto, until he performs hagalah on the handle (Magen Avraham subsection 24). And it is not compelling, and one may permit it post facto even before use (see Chok Yaakov subsection 40). And a vessel that was used in its entirety, and they koshered part of it, and one used that part afterward—it is permitted. But if one used the side that they did not kosher—it is forbidden (Magen Avraham ibid.).

A vessel that has a patch, such as iron vessels and copper vessels where, when there is a hole or a crack, they place a patch there, and if so, the hagalah did not expel the absorbed substance that is under the patch. However, if the patch is of tin melted by fire onto the place – there is no concern in this, for at the time of placing the patch, all the forbidden substance was burnt (Taz, subsection 18, and Chok Yaakov, subsection 41). However, a patch that they make by means of nails, meaning that they place a piece of metal on the spot and fix it with nails – in this there are detailed laws, as will be explained. And with us, most patches are by means of melting tin, and if so, we do not have all these laws. And there are those who err in this.

Regarding a patch attached by rivets, if the patch preceded the absorption of the forbidden substance—meaning he placed the patch while it was still new, or they performed hagalah before placing the patch—he does not need to remove it now. For regarding what it absorbed while the patch was upon it, as it absorbs, so it expels, and previously it had not absorbed. And if it is because perhaps there are small holes where crumbs of chametz entered—he shall pick them out. And if it is truly impossible to pick them out—he shall place a few coals there. However, if the absorption of the forbidden substance preceded the patch, for then the absorbed substance under the patch will not exit through hagalah, and it is expelled little by little; therefore, he must either remove the patch before the hagalah, or place coals on the location of the patch, and sparks should be flying from it, until the substance of the forbidden matter is certainly burnt if it is there. And afterward, he performs hagalah for the entire vessel. And there is one who wishes to say that even when the patch preceded the absorption—it always requires a light libun on this location (Magen Avraham, subsection 27). And it is an excessive stringency, and there is no need for this (Chayei Adam, subsection 42). And such is the primary ruling in the law.

And old vessels that were coated with tin, which is called "weissen," where the coating is applied over fire by means of molten lead—there are those who were stringent to require afterward also hagalah. And there are those who said that this libun is sufficient, and such is the primary ruling. For even if it is a light libun—it is superior to hagalah. And one of the great early authorities (the Re'em) proved that it must necessarily be so, for if not, what would hagalah avail? Behold, the coating intervenes between the absorbed matter and the hagalah, and it is like the absorption preceded the patch. Furthermore: since the tin intervenes—it is like a new vessel. (Magen Avraham ibid. And it is likewise explained by the Taz, subsection 18, who wrote: when they drip a piece of tin—all the absorbed matter is burned, see there. And so it appears to the eyes, that the heat is as great as actual fire. And particularly when they are not ben yomo. And there is no reason at all to be stringent in this, and so we instruct in practice.)

The markings that craftsmen make on vessels, which contain engraved letters—their law is not like that of cracks, crevices, and pits to require libun there. For they are made anew before their use, and they are also made smooth, thin, and straight, and the hagalah passes through them, and he shall pick them out well as is proper. And if it is not possible to pick them out—it is necessary to place a few coals there. And so too one must scrape well around the handles of the vessels, for there are thin pit-like areas there. And so too when the handles of the vessels are attached with nails like the shovels—one must scrape well around the nails, for there are thin pit-like areas there. And so too anything similar to this.

An iron cover used to cover a pot requires hagalah, since it sweats constantly from the heat of the pot and from the steam rising from the food, and it is absorbed within it—its law is like the vessel itself. On the contrary, regarding a cover we are more stringent in Yoreh Deah siman 93, where we treat one that is not ben yomo like one that is ben yomo. And even though many there disagree with this, and even those who are stringent were only stringent with a deep and narrow cover as is explained there, nevertheless, regarding Pesach, whose prohibition is stringent even in a minute amount, and there are also those who prohibit even a flavoring that imparts a tainted taste as I wrote in siman 447—one certainly must be stringent. And if they covered a pot on Pesach with a chametz cover—one must prohibit the entire cooked dish, because the sweat of the cover mixes into the cooked dish. Nevertheless, everything is according to the matter, for if a long time passed during which the cover was not used for chametz, and it was completely dry—one does not prohibit the cooked dish. And this is regarding a pot cover, for which hagalah is sufficient. But an iron cover that they place upon chametz bread requires libun. And all the more so those iron bowls, or other metals in which chametz is baked, which require libun. And if they baked matzah in them before libun, even if they performed hagalah on them, and likewise their cover—all the matzah is prohibited even if they are not ben yoman, because the absorption in them is great.

A meducha, whether of wood or of stone, and metal ones where they sometimes place chametz to crush together with garlic and onions—requires hagalah even though its use is with cold items, for crushing with sharp things causes absorption like cooking, and it is permitted through hagalah. One must scrape out the holes and the cracks. And if because of its size it is impossible to place it into the yoreh—one places boiling water inside it, and they place stones heated in fire there, and the boiling rises over its entire rim, and it is like a kli rishon and perhaps more, as we see the unusual boilings.

And some say that a mortar is like a leaven-crock, and requires libun. This is the opinion of Rashi, as the Tur wrote. However, a minimal libun is sufficient, which means burning straw upon it from the outside. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 16 that it is the custom to perform libun on it initially. However, hagalah is sufficient for it if it has no pits. And if the mortar is of wood – it should be scraped with a professional tool, for we are concerned about pits, and then perform hagalah on it. Thus far his words. And this was in their days, but in our days we have not heard that they crush chametz in a mortar. Our mortars are used only to crush salt and peppers and the like. And even if it happened a few times that bread was crushed there – it was merely incidental, and at most hagalah is sufficient (Magen Avraham, subsection 31). And spices and salt that were crushed in our mortars before Pesach without hagalah – certainly there is no reason to forbid them, for there is no concern regarding them according to our mortars. And even if perhaps there was a minute amount of chametz – it was nullified before Pesach. But if one crushed on Pesach in a chametz mortar – it is obvious that it is forbidden to put them into the cooked food. Nevertheless, if one did put it into the cooked food – one should not forbid it after the fact, for it is merely a concern, and one does not forbid after the fact (ibid. and see Taz, subsection 19).

The board upon which they roll the dough all year, and likewise the trough in which they knead—require hagalah. For even though their use is with cold, nevertheless, because of the constant kneading and rolling, and the leaven—much is absorbed. Therefore, it is forbidden even post facto without hagalah when one used them with heat on Pesach, or kneaded matzah in them or rolled matzah. And even peeling with a professional tool is not effective for them, because the absorption has spread through the whole of it. And so too for anything that requires hagalah—peeling is not effective, and it is simple. And this is according to the law. But the custom is not to use the board and trough of chametz at all on Pesach, even by means of hagalah, because there are cracks and crevices and it is impossible to escape from a minute amount of chametz. And furthermore: they are similar to a leaven-container, for according to one opinion hagalah is not effective, as will be explained. And Heaven forbid to use them even by means of the intervention of a cloth. And one puts them away with the chametz vessels, and one should not deviate, for such is the principle.

And for this reason, we are careful not to perform hagalah on a barrel in which they kept flour all year, or a barrel where they placed borst or kvass made of bran and bread crumbs, for it is impossible that some small amount of chametz would not be hidden in a crack. However, if before Pesach they kept water there for some time – it is permitted to perform hagalah on them, for the water washed out all the cracks (Taz, subsection 20). But a barrel in which they kept water all year – it requires nothing, because there is no concern regarding it. And even if at times they drew from it with a vessel that had chametz in it, nevertheless, when they draw, there is no chametz in it. And even if a little chametz fell into it – it was already nullified before Pesach. However, one cleans it for Pesach, and that is sufficient. But regarding barrels belonging to a baker, where many times he rinses his hands which are full of dough into it, and many times flour dust falls upon it – one should not permit it without hagalah, or by means of infusion for three days, as will be explained.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 21: A clay barrel in which barley beer was placed is permitted through hagalah or through irui for three days. Thus far his words. And in the Tur he explained the reason: for even though hagalah is not effective for clay vessels, this is when it absorbed through heat and not through cold, see there. But it is not understood: for since it remained for twenty-four hours, it is considered kavush, and kavush is like cooked. However, they wrote that with cold, even with kavush, it does not absorb like with heat, for regarding the absorption of the vessel it is not like cooked (see Taz subsection 22), and even one of clay absorbs only a little. And they brought from the Yerushalmi at the end of the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" that Rabbi Ami ruled regarding those jars of kutach, that one fills them for three days and pours them out according to the law of yayin nesech, for irui is effective for the vessels. And that is to fill it with water for three days, twenty-four hours each, and every twenty-four hours to change the water, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 135. And even if the three days are not consecutive, and even with a clay vessel as is explained there. And they established that jars are made of clay.

And since pouring is effective—all the more so hagalah, for hagalah is superior to pouring (the Tur). And how does one perform hagalah on the barrel? He should heat stones until they glow and place them in them, and pour boiling water over them, and roll the barrel so that the hagalah reaches every place, and the boiling water must be from a kli rishon. And they wrote further that ex post facto, if one placed wine or honey in the barrel without hagalah, but only rinsed them well first—it is permitted to drink them on Pesach if he placed them before Pesach. For the taste of the chametz is nullified in sixty, as the absorption does not travel through the entire vessel by means of cold liquid even in an earthenware vessel, and even when it remained there many days. Furthermore: it is a taste that imparts a blemish since it is not of its day. Furthermore: beer in wine is a taste that imparts a blemish (Magen Avraham subsection 40 in the name of the Mordechai).

All of this is according to the law. However, we have already adopted the custom not to perform hagalah on a barrel of beer because pits are common in them, and it is impossible to scrape between the staves such that not even a minute amount of chametz remains (ibid. and Bach and Rashal and Levush). And likewise, not to perform hagalah on any wooden vessel in which pits are common. And it is a kal vachomer that regarding a barrel of brandy, according to the law it is forbidden to perform hagalah, for its scent is strong and sharp. And even if it stood for some time in water—it is not effective for brandy. But regarding one of beer, when it stood for some time in water—it is permitted to perform hagalah on it, as I wrote in section 31. And it appears to me that regarding a barrel of brandy, when twelve months have passed since they held brandy in it, it is permitted to perform hagalah on it. And know that we find iruy only for things whose use is with cold, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah there. And they wrote that vessels whose use is with cold, such as jugs and cups—it is better to perform iruy than to perform hagalah on them with vessels whose use is with heat (Magen Avraham, subsection 39). And this is when the hagalah is within twenty-four hours of their use. But after that—we have no concern regarding it. And such is the custom to perform hagalah together, because we perform hagalah a long time after their use. And we also perform hagalah before the time of the prohibition of chametz.

One must be very meticulous with the sifter, to clean it from the crumbs of chametz that cling to it, and that are tangled and stuck in the holes of the sifter's weave and in its wood, and they shall scrub it with water very well. The same law applies to all other kneading vessels, for scrubbing them is a major principle. And if water came upon the sifter, even on a portion of it—it has no remedy to be used on Pesach (ibid. subsection 34). And they shall not sift Pesach flour with it, even if there is no new sifter there, and it is better that they do not sift at all (ibid.). And it is the custom not to use a sifter even by means of hagalah, and one should not change this. And so too in anything similar to this, such as the vessel called a "reib-eisen," for sometimes they crumble bread upon it, or they grate horseradish called "krain" with it, which they cut with a chametz knife and a minute amount of chametz remained within it. And if they grated with it on Pesach—even ex post facto it should be forbidden. However, if they grated with it on Erev Pesach—it is permitted, for it is nullified in sixty (ibid. subsection 35). And it appears to me that with our "reib-eisen," upon which they grate only horseradish, and they grate the horseradish clean of everything, and when they cut it they cut with a clean knife—even on Pesach itself there is grounds to permit it, when they grated Pesach horseradish on a chametz "reib-eisen."

And know that regarding what we wrote, that it is better not to sift the flour than to sift it on a chametz sieve, there is one who disagrees in this and says that Pesach flour that was not sifted is forbidden even ex post facto, for the reason that many times broken wheat kernels were found inside the flour (Chok Yaakov, subsection 51). And these are wondering words, for what of it? For the Tur explicitly wrote in siman 467 that there is no concern in this, for if the dough did not become leavened, all the more so the wheat kernel. And the Tur is only concerned there lest the wheat kernel came from the water, see there. But when it is from the flour, it is obvious that it is nothing (Mekor Chaim, subsection 9). However, if one transgressed and sifted even during Pesach, it is permitted ex post facto unless water came upon it. And before Pesach, even in such a case it is permitted ex post facto (ibid.), for it has already been nullified.

And similarly, baskets used for chametz—their law is like that of a sieve. However, regarding old sacks—it is customary to permit them by means of laundering. And one must undo all the seams in them before the laundering. And there is one who says that even if he undoes the seams—laundering is not effective, for the chametz adheres to it, and it is impossible that some small amount of chametz will not remain within it (Bach). But in Terumat HaDeshen (siman 147) he wrote explicitly to be lenient, and one only needs to scrape well the dry places that are in the sacks (Magen Avraham subsection 36). And all the more so for us, as we bake everything before Pesach, for there is no concern in this. And only the laundering must be a complete laundering, and not merely a rinsing. And post facto, one should not forbid even with a rinsing, since the prohibition is cold (ibid.). And similarly, the cloths upon which they make the matzot—it is forbidden to make upon them another time, because of the dough that adheres to them (ibid.). And it is not the custom among us to roll matzot on cloths, but rather there are those who roll matzah shemurah on paper. And also, one should not make on each paper more than one matzah, because much adheres. And it is better to roll on a smooth wooden table to which it does not adhere, and if it adheres, it is easily scraped. And all the more so if one rolls on iron—how good it is. And there are those who roll on a type of iron called blech, and this is good and proper, provided that it is attached with nails to the table. For if not so, it wobbles here and there, and it is not good for the rolling of the matzah. And there are those who do so, and may a blessing come upon them.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 18 that for the bag of the mill—hagalah is not effective, see there. And it appears that his intention is for the iron bag with perforations called a "shatka," through which the flour descends. And for the silk bag, the custom is to remove it and cut the stitches, and they wash and clean it, and sew it anew. And the other items there, the boxes and the like—they clean them very, very well. And the first grinding they leave until after Pesach. And now with steam mills, one needs extra caution, because there is much heat there from the steam, and one must be careful that the vapor does not rise there. And this is not in our location, and I am not expert in them or in their names. And one of the great authorities wrote (150:82 letter 125) that in Prague they instituted to remove the upper cover, because by means of the cover the vapor increases and leads to leavening, see there.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 19: The shovel called pala or schaufel or lapetta, upon which they place the loaves to set them in the oven – some say that hagalah is not effective for it, and one must purchase a new one. Thus far his words, because this is considered its usage by means of fire and requires libun, and one of wood, for which libun is impossible – is not permitted through hagalah. And a shovel for matzah that one put away for another year – does not require anything. They should only be careful to pick it clean thoroughly, and to see if they picked it clean properly. And some are accustomed to perform hagalah on it for the next year, and one should prevent them, for through this they will not supervise its cleaning properly. And furthermore: for the observer will say that he is performing hagalah on a shovel used for chametz, and he too will do so (Taz, subsection 21). And so too with all Pesach vessels that one puts away for the coming Pesach – they do not require anything.

And there is one who says that for the following year it requires hagalah, lest some chametz adhered to it (Magen Avraham, subsection 37). And the first opinion appears more likely, that it does not require it (Chok Yaakov, subsection 54). And a chametz shovel is not helped even by peeling with hagalah (Magen Avraham, ibid.). And there was an incident where they placed matzah with a chametz shovel, and they permitted it by means of peeling even when they removed it hot (ibid. from the Maharam of Rothenburg), for even actual chametz that touched matzah hot-to-hot—it is sufficient to remove the place of contact, and certainly so with absorbed flavor and when it is not a ben yomo. And it is understood on its own that with our matzot which are thin—it is impossible to peel them. And it appears to me that if they baked one matzah or two matzot with it—they should not eat them on Pesach. But if they baked many matzot with it—all the matzot are permitted, since it is dry and is not a ben yoma. And before Pesach there is no reason at all to forbid them, and one who forbids them wastes the money of Israel for nothing. And specifically by us, where they only scrape from the oven with the shovel. But to place in the oven they put them on sticks, and the scraping is instantaneous—it is permitted without any doubt. And it is obvious that with a folded or swollen matzah, which is merely a stringency, if they scraped it with the shovel, the shovel was not forbidden. (See Magen Avraham ibid., that if they scraped an actual leavened matzah with it—it is forbidden to scrape with it further. And if they scraped—they are forbidden. And if they were mixed with the previous ones—they are nullified, see there. For one in two is nullified in dry-in-dry. And even those who forbid in siman 447 admit to this, for the prohibition is absorbed and minimal. And the intention of the Pri Chadash is like the Eliyah Rabbah, that they were mixed with the previous ones. And the Magen Avraham wondered about him for nothing, see there and in the Chok Yaakov. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

The tables and the chests in which one stores chametz, and the benches upon which one places the pots, and likewise the table of the kitchen upon which one places hot pots, according to the law—they do not require hagalah, for the pot separates between the chametz and the place upon which the pot stands, and it does not absorb at all (Chok Yaakov, subsection 55). However, they were concerned lest chametz soup was spilled upon the place, and therefore it is the custom to pour boiling water upon them from a kli rishon. And now it is the custom also to pass a glowing stone, which is called a "kasser stein," and there is no obligation for this. (And one does not need to place boards upon the tables. And the Maharil wrote to spread rags upon them after hagalah, for perhaps there is a bit of actual chametz, as the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 38, see there. And now we clean and scrape and pick, and there is no need for this.)

All vessels, even of earthenware, in which chametz was used cold—it is permitted to use them for matzah even with heat. Therefore, chests and cabinets in which chametz bread is placed—it is permitted to use matzah there even with heat, without any kashering. Nevertheless, they must be washed with cold water, and cleaned, scraped, and searched, for certainly there are crumbs of chametz there. And when they are cleaned properly—it is permitted to place even hot items there; except for a leaven container, which is the vessel in which they make leaven to leaven the dough, and a charoset container, which is where they place sharp items with the chametz. For even though chametz was only used in them cold—it is forbidden to use them for matzah with heat. But to place baked matzah in them cold—it is permitted. And this is in a temporary manner. But in a permanent manner—it is forbidden, so that one does not come to use them with heat. And even in a temporary manner it is not proper ab initio, as I wrote in section 11, see there.

According to the opinion of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, section 22, hagalah is effective for a leaven-container and a charoset-container, for certainly the hagalah will cause them to expel [the absorbed matter], even though their leavening is sharp and harsh, since their absorption was through cold. This is the opinion of the Ri and the Rosh. However, the opinion of Rashi and the greats of his generation—they would forbid them even with hagalah, for since its leavening is constant, and sharp and harsh—hagalah will not cause them to expel, but rather libun if they were of metal. And so the world is accustomed. And nowadays we are accustomed not to use any types of old earthenware vessels even for cold, and we hide them away entirely until after Pesach. And even good earthenware vessels coated with sand and a bit of lead, and glass which they call paliva—are entirely forbidden. And all the more so a leaven-container and a charoset-container of earthenware, which it is forbidden to use even for cold, and even by means of hagalah. And there are those who err to say that for an earthenware vessel coated with lead—hagalah is effective. And it is an error; first, because the coating is thin, and the primary absorption is in the earthenware. Furthermore: because the coating is not of lead, only a bit of lead is there, and the primary [substance] is sand and glass (and what was written in the Mordechai, that was in their days).

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 22 that the oven of the winter house has the status of an earthenware vessel, and it is forbidden to place anything upon the oven on Pesach. Thus far his words. That is to say: inside the oven, the heating and libun are effective, but the heating of its interior will not expel the chametz that is upon its exterior. Like the ovens of the winter house in former times, where there was a place for use and sitting on top, called a "lizhanka," and throughout the year they place hot pots of chametz there. Certainly, if one wishes to perform libun upon it, such as by placing coals upon it as we do with "kakhlen," as I wrote in section 10—it is certainly permitted. However, it is not the practice to do so because of the size of the surface area, as I wrote there. And there it was explained whether a plastering of clay is effective; see there.

And know that there is one who forbids post facto when one placed a hot pot on Pesah on a winter stove or inside the tiles, because sometimes they use actual hametz there, as they place a piece of bread or kreplach and the like there (Bach and his teacher). But the great authorities disagreed with him, for this is like what is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 96, when they placed a hot meat pot on a place where they baked cheese fladen, that it is permitted because the pot intervenes. And here too it is so, for this is like two pots that touched each other; and certainly if they placed matzah on this place it is forbidden, but not in a pot (Taz subsection 28, and Magen Avraham subsection 44, and Chok Yaakov and Mekor Chaim). And see what I wrote in section 10.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 23: Earthenware vessels coated with a glass glaze—their law is like (glass) [earthenware] vessels. Thus far his words, and this is our "paliwa." Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are places where the custom is not to use "glazirt" earthenware vessels even when they are new, and one should only be stringent in a place where such is the custom. Thus far his words. They wrote that the reason for the custom is because they strengthen them with bran. And even though they place them in fire—they only place them in a heated oven, and not in kilns. There are also other weak reasons. Among us, this custom does not exist, and all our usage is with "paliwa" vessels, and according to their current manufacture as is known—there is no concern regarding them whatsoever.

He further wrote that wooden vessels coated with pigments called varnish—their law is like that of earthenware vessels. Thus far his words. And it is not known to us what this is. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that there are places that are stringent not to use dyed vessels, even if they are new, and likewise those plated with tin. And one should not be stringent in this except in a place where they have practiced a prohibition. Thus far his words. And the reason for the custom: because we concern ourselves that perhaps he coated old vessels or dyed them (Magen Avraham, subsection 47). And likewise vessels dyed with saffron, or what is called in the vernacular blech-maled (ibid. and Chayei Adam, subsection 65). And among us, we use dyed glaze, for there is no such concern regarding them. And everything that comes from the factory—they are new. But earthenware vessels coated with tin—certainly one should not use them, but they are not common among us. And they wrote that there are places where a Jew stands by during the time of the work (Beer Heitiv, subsection 52 and Mekor Chaim).

All drinking vessels that one drinks water or wine from, whether flasks or cups—are permitted with a mere rinsing, whether they are of glass, whether they are of wood, whether they are of metals, or whether they are of earthenware. And even though one occasionally places hot bread in them, since the majority of their use is only with cold—rinsing is sufficient. For regarding every vessel, they followed only after the majority of its use. However, there are those who are stringent and require hagalah, and such is the custom. And when they are used for beer or brandy—it is obvious that they require hagalah. And if so, this applies only to wooden vessels and metal vessels, and it is simple.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 26: Glass vessels, even if one puts [leaven] into them for preservation, and even if one uses them with hot substances—they do not require any koshering. And a mere rinsing is sufficient for them. Thus far his words. And even though the creation of glass is from sand, nevertheless, since they are very smooth, they do not absorb. And so we hold in Yoreh Deah siman 135 regarding the matter of wine used for idolatry. And even though there their absorption is with cold substances, nevertheless, even with hot substances they do not absorb. And I am in doubt even according to this opinion, regarding those [vessels] in which they put brandy, if we are lenient with them? And it appears that they are forbidden, for behold, our eyes see that the scent prevails in them even afterward, and therefore they require soaking for three days.

Our teacher, the Rema, disagrees in this, and this is his wording: And there are those who are stringent and say that for glass vessels—even hagalah does not avail them. And such is the custom in Ashkenaz and in these provinces. Thus far his words. And the reason is: since their creation is from sand, their law is like earthenware vessels. And according to this, even irui is not effective, for irui is no better than hagalah. And it appears that this is only when they were used with hot substances, for regarding cold substances, why in the case of yayin nesech did he not rule stringently there in Yoreh Deah? And according to this, certainly for all glass drinking vessels, irui for three days avails, for those used with hot substances do not have chametz enter them. And even if perhaps it entered by chance, we have no concern with it. And so we rule the halachah in practice. And even glass cups in which one drinks spirits, since the usage is only for a brief moment, we have no concern with it. But glass bottles in which one places spirits—we do not permit them with irui, for since one places it in them for preservation, and it remains in them for many days, and it is very sharp—it is not similar to yayin nesech.

He further wrote: And similarly, a silver vessel that has within it a glass fusion called "geschmelzt" – one may not perform hagalah on it. But from the outside, it does not cause harm. Thus far his words, because from the outside the absorbed flavor does not enter the entire vessel. However, according to what I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 92, we hold that it travels through the entire vessel; yet here they wrote another reason, because these vessels are not used with heat (see Magen Avraham subsection 50). And such vessels are not known to us in these days of ours.

In section 13 it was explained that a spit requires libun. And this is regarding a spit upon which they roasted chametz, such as pastida and the like, for if it is only that which they roast meat upon—there is no chametz in this. And even if they roasted meat in it that was salted with salt that was not inspected, what of it? And if there was some small amount of chametz in this—it was already nullified before Pesach, and at most, hagalah is sufficient (Taz, subsection 8). And if they roasted meat and poultry in it on Pesach, even without any preparation—they are permitted. However, one should not permit this except post facto, and ab initio it requires preparation. And among us, the vilkes with which they place the pots in the oven, and with which they remove the pots from the oven—require hagalah, for many times [substance] spills upon them from the pots. And the wooden handles fixed in them—do not require anything, because they are far from the pot. Nevertheless, it is the custom to make new ones. And the vilkes are purified with libun in fire. And the board with which they seal the oven—requires hagalah, or a completely new one. And the taps that are in a wine barrel—it is permitted to use the taps that were in wine of chametz. And it is the custom to rinse them, for perhaps they took it with hands that had chametz adhering to them. But taps of beer and of spirits—require new ones or to perform hagalah on them, for they have absorbed a strong scent of chametz. And so too the wood in which they fix drinking vessels, which are called probkes—require rinsing to place them in a Pesach vessel. And all covers have the same law, for behold, they have no usage at all. But covers of beer and of spirits require preparation or new ones, for they have absorbed a strong scent, and one should be stringent regarding them.