Siman 452

In the previous siman, the laws of koshering vessels for Pesah were explained, as they are like all other prohibitions: that vessels whose use is with fire, such as spits and grills, require libun, and those whose use is with cooking, such as pots and the like, require hagalah. The Rishonim raised a difficulty, for at the end of tractate Avodah Zarah it asks from kodashim regarding other prohibitions, as we learned in a Mishnah regarding kodashim: Spits and grills that become notar after the time of their eating, and that which is absorbed in them becomes notar, and notar is a prohibition punishable by karet. It is taught in the Mishnah that one performs hagalah on the spits and grills in hot water, and they do not require libun. And it answers that kodashim absorbed permitted matter. And even though after time it becomes a prohibition, at that point the prohibition is not present in substance, whereas other prohibitions absorbed prohibited matter. And such is the conclusion there. And according to this they raised a difficulty, for does not hametz also absorb permitted matter like kodashim? And indeed, the opinion of the Ra'avad is that regarding hametz they also do not require libun, as the Ran wrote there. But the Rif and the Rambam ruled that it requires libun—it is difficult. And the Ran answered that they hold that hametz is not called "absorbed permitted matter," for the name "hametz" was upon it even beforehand, which is not the case with notar, for beforehand the name "notar" was not upon it, see there. And even though it is not understood, for what does the name "hametz" matter to me since then it was permitted, nevertheless, since the name did not change, it is called "absorbed prohibited matter." And we do not have the power to disagree with the Rishonim based on reasoning.

And according to this, the Ran, of blessed memory, wrote there that the reasoning of "naton ta'am bar naton ta'am" does not apply to chametz, for regarding a forbidden substance, "naton ta'am bar naton ta'am" is not relevant. Only regarding meat and milk does this reasoning exist, because each one on its own is permitted and the flavor is weakened, but not regarding a forbidden substance, as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 95. And according to this, they raised a difficulty against the Rosh, who utilized the reasoning of "naton ta'am bar naton ta'am" regarding chametz, as will be explained in this siman. This implies that he holds that chametz is called "absorbed while permitted." Yet he ruled in the chapter "Kol Sha'ah" like the Rif and the Rambam, that libun is required. And this would be a contradiction. (Pri Chadash and Korban Netanel there, ot 38. And regarding what he wanted to say, that according to the reasoning of "absorbed while permitted" one also requires the reason of "cold," see there—it is astonishing, for the answer of "absorbed while permitted" answers before the answer of "cold" arose there, and likewise in the conclusion, see there. Also, the essence of this reason is not applicable to chametz, see there. Examine it and you will find it simple.)

And it appears in my humble opinion that the Rosh holds that there is no difficulty in this. For when we say that where it absorbed permitted matter, hagalah is sufficient – this refers to a prohibition that is nullified in sixty, which is not the case regarding chametz, where its prohibition is in any amount. And kodashim is nullified in sixty, as we have learned in Zevachim (97a): If one cooked kodashim and chullin, if there is enough to impart flavor… behold it is explicit that regarding kodashim we follow the imparting of flavor, and what comparison is there to chametz? This is not the case regarding "imparting flavor from that which imparted flavor" which is weak, and the flavor has completely dissipated – one should not be more stringent regarding chametz than regarding other prohibitions. For it has already been explained that they were not more stringent regarding chametz, except in a case where regarding other prohibitions it would prohibit in sixty – it prohibits in chametz in any amount. But in a case where it does not require sixty regarding other prohibitions – it also does not prohibit regarding chametz, as I wrote in siman 447, section 7. And it is clear with the help of Heaven.

The Tur wrote: The order of hagalah: One takes a large cauldron full of water and boils it, and places all the vessels into it. And a large vessel that he cannot place inside it—he fills it with water and boils it, and makes a rim around its mouth from clay so that it will be filled well and the water will touch its rim. And if he wishes, he may take a glowing stone or a torch of fire and cast it into it while it is boiling, and through this the water will boil more and rise over its rim. Thus far his words, meaning: that in such a case he does not need to make a rim around its mouth from clay. And so wrote our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6. And even though in this case the purging is only by means of sparks that the boilings raise over its rim, nevertheless it is permitted, for as it absorbs, so it purges. For the absorption there also occurs by means of sparks (Gemara). And besides this, is it not possible that this time sparks will not rise at all? And even with a rim of clay it is only like the raising of sparks, as the water flows through the clay, but the raising of sparks will necessarily occur (Magen Avraham, subsection 11). Therefore, regarding a vessel whose rim has complete usage, such as bowls that are sometimes overturned onto a pan, or with which one scoops from the pot—it is not effective in such a case, for there will only be the raising of sparks, and it is necessary to place it inside a large cauldron (ibid. and Taz, subsection 11). Furthermore: when one scoops with it from the pot, also for another reason—it is necessary to place it into the cauldron, for the outer side also absorbed, and it must be purged in the manner of its absorption, which is that the outer side must also be within the water of the hagalah. Therefore, it is necessary to place it in the cauldron (ibid.).

A vessel whose mouth is narrow, such that it is impossible to scrub it inside, or that has tubes where it is impossible to scrub—they are forbidden for hagalah (ibid.). And this is regarding vessels in which one uses chametz. But when one uses them only for hot water, such as our copper lyakes which according to the law do not require any hagalah—we are accustomed to perform hagalah on them in a cauldron or to fill them with water until the boiling bubbles rise. And so too our mulyar which is called a samovar—we perform hagalah on them, because according to the law they do not require anything. However, in truth, the mulyar has a wide cavity, and even if they put chametz in it, such as if they put arak or strong spirit in it occasionally—hagalah is effective for it, because they are able to clean it. And they place coals in it and water until the top, and when it begins to boil—it is necessary that the water will rise to the top and overflow to the outside as well, as our eyes see. And it does not require a gadanfa, that is, a rim of clay around it, for this is better than a torch of fire.

This is the wording of the Tur: The Rif wrote: One should leave the vessels in the cauldron until they emit. Meaning: that one should not place the vessel in the cauldron and immediately remove it from the cauldron, for perhaps it will not emit in such a short time. Therefore, one must leave it there for a short time. And the measure of how long was not specified, but rather it is given to the estimation of the mind (Rashba part one siman 479). And in the name of the Avi HaEzri, the Tur wrote: For who knows how to estimate the measure of the emission, and perhaps he will leave them inside and they will return and absorb. Therefore, a God-fearing person who wishes to perform hagalah on many vessels together—should leave them for twenty-four hours from their use, for since their taste is spoiled—they do not prohibit. Provided that he performs hagalah during the time of permission before the fifth hour, for after its prohibition, its spoilage does not permit. And my lord, my father, the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that before the time of its prohibition—one may perform hagalah even on a vessel used that day, even if there is not sixty in the water to nullify it. But after the time, and likewise during all days of the year when one comes to perform hagalah on a vessel that has absorbed prohibition—one should not perform hagalah on it unless the vessel has not been used that day, or there is sixty in the water to nullify it. And we are accustomed to insert them and remove them immediately. Thus far his words.

And it appears to me that they disagree whether chametz is called "absorbed as permitted" or "absorbed as forbidden." For the Avi HaEzri holds that it is called "absorbed as forbidden," like the reasoning of the Ran that we wrote in section 1, and therefore even before its time it must not be "ben yomo." But the Rosh holds that it is called "absorbed as permitted," and therefore even if they are "benei yoman" – it is permitted by reason of "noten ta'am bar noten ta'am." For the chametz gave taste to the vessel, and the vessel to the water, and it returns and is absorbed in the vessel, and it is all still permitted. However, after the time of its prohibition, "noten ta'am bar noten ta'am" is not applicable, for there is no "noten ta'am bar noten ta'am" regarding a prohibition. Therefore, it must not be "ben yomo." And even according to those who prohibit "noten ta'am lifgam" on Pesach, nevertheless regarding what is absorbed – they were not concerned.

The Tur further wrote, and this is his wording: Rashbam wrote that one must first perform hagalah on the large cauldron in which one performs hagalah for other vessels. And so Rashi instructed, and so the Riva. And so it is in the Responsa of the Geonim: One rinses the large cauldron, performs hagalah on it with boiling water and renders it fit, and rinses it in cold water, and first causes it to expel the chametz. And afterward, one boils in it boiling water without measure. And one should be careful that the water does not cease from boiling, for if it ceases – it is forbidden to perform hagalah on vessels in them. And one takes them and rinses them in cold water. And afterward, one fills the large cauldron, and encompasses its rim, and performs hagalah on it according to its first law, and pours it out and rinses it. And my lord, my father the Rosh, of blessed memory, wrote that the law of the large cauldron is like the law of other vessels: that if it is not a "ben yomo," or even if it is a "ben yomo" and it is before the fifth hour – one does not need to perform hagalah on it first. But if it is from the fifth hour and onward, if it is a "ben yomo" – one must perform hagalah on it first, because in the first hagalah the water becomes forbidden, for there is not sixty in them to nullify the expulsion of the cauldron, as we measure against the whole of it. And it turns out that all the water becomes forbidden and is absorbed into the vessels undergoing hagalah within them, if one leaves them inside until their expulsion is finished. But before the fifth hour, even though they return and are absorbed within them – there is no concern, for it is the time of its permissibility, and it is similar to "giving a taste that is the son of a taste." Thus far his words. And that which he wrote: "if one leaves them inside," for if not so, as long as they are busy expelling – they do not absorb. And here too is the essence of their dispute, for our teachers hold that chametz is called "absorbed prohibition," and the Rosh holds that it is called "absorbed permission," as I have written.

And behold, according to what has been explained, many of our teachers hold that chametz is called "absorbed prohibition," except for the Rosh. Nevertheless, our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, ruled like him, for his reasoning is logical. And even though in siman 447 we did not permit things that were cooked in chametz vessels before Pesach based on the reasoning of "a giver of taste that is the son of a giver of taste," and we grasped the logic that chametz is called "absorbed prohibition" as I wrote there in section 29, see there—for certainly regarding eating on Pesach itself based on the permission of "a giver of taste that is the son of a giver of taste," we do not rely on this against all those teachers. This is not the case regarding hagalah before Pesach. And there are many reasons here until it would expel into the food—in this, we well rely on this logic (see Magen Avraham subsection 1, and Chok Yaakov subsection 2).

This is the wording of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, in section 1: One must be careful to perform hagalah before the fifth hour, so that he will not need to be exacting as to whether the vessels are ben yomo or not, or if there is sixty in the water against the vessel he is performing hagalah upon or not. And likewise if he performs hagalah on vessels whose absorption is minimal together with vessels whose absorption is substantial. (For after the time of prohibition, there is concern lest the vessel whose absorption is minimal will absorb after [the flavor] is emitted from the vessel whose absorption is substantial and takes time to emit.) And likewise if he leaves the vessels inside the vat for too long (as there is concern that after it emits, it will return and absorb). And he does not leave them that long. (Meaning: since he is afraid of leaving them too long—he will not leave them at all even for the necessary amount.) And likewise so that he will not need to be careful that the water does not cease from its boiling (for as long as they are boiling—they emit and do not cause absorption, and afterwards they cause absorption). And that he should not insert the vessel until the water boils (also for this reason). And likewise so that he will not need to perform hagalah on the large vat in which they perform hagalah at the beginning and at the end. Thus far his words, which is not like the opinion of the Geonim that we brought, but rather like the opinion of the Rosh that it is sufficient at the beginning or at the end.

And know that regarding that which they wrote, that the water should not cease from its boiling, our teacher, the Rema, wrote, and this is his wording: However, many disagree, and they hold that hagalah is of no use at all if the water is not boiling. Therefore, one must be careful even before the time of its prohibition, that they do not cease from their boiling as long as one is performing hagalah. Thus far his words. And it is not understood at all: And who is it that disagrees with this? Behold, even the first opinion holds that hagalah is only at the time of boiling, and only that they say that before the time of its prohibition the water may cease slightly from its boiling, and the vessels will not be prohibited. This is not the case after the time of its prohibition—when they cease, they will absorb from the prohibited emissions. But it is simple that hagalah is only at the time of boiling, and the commentators have already challenged him (Magen Avraham subsection 3, and Chok Yaakov, and Eliyah Rabbah). And the Levush understood that according to the previous opinion, hagalah is effective even when the water ceases from its boiling, because in any case it weakens the taste, see there. And these are wondrous matters (and regarding yayin nesech there are those who hold so).

It appears to me that he spoke well, and he has informed us of a great matter in this. For behold, it has already been explained that one must be precise with the time that the vessel is within the water: not a brief moment like an instant because there is no time for purging, and not an extended time because if so, it returns and absorbs. And even though when one performs hagalah before the time of its prohibition we do not care if it returns and absorbs, and especially if the vessels are not ben yomo, nevertheless, why should we do so ab initio? Ultimately, it will absorb chametz there, and it is not proper to do so. But who is he who can be precise with the time? And for the most part, they are placed in the cauldron for more than the required measure. However, as long as the cauldron is boiling and producing bubbles—there is no concern in this, for then it only purges and does not absorb. This is not the case when it rests from its boiling. And this is what he says regarding the previous opinion: that before the time of its prohibition, one does not need to be exacting in this if the water rests from its boiling. And to this he says that there are those who disagree, that hagalah is of no use at all if the water is not boiling, meaning: that it is as if he did not perform hagalah, since it returns and absorbs. And even though it is still permitted, nevertheless, what benefit is there in the hagalah when it returns and absorbs? Therefore, one must be careful that throughout the duration of the hagalah, the cauldron does not rest from its boiling, and so it is proper to conduct oneself and to be careful in this.

If one did not perform hagalah before the time of its prohibition—one may perform hagalah until Pesach. However, on Pesach itself one should not perform hagalah, since then chametz is prohibited in any amount and the hagalah is not effective, for it is impossible that it will not return and absorb a small amount. But it is permitted to perform libun on a vessel during Pesach, because the fire extracts all that is absorbed, and it does not return and cause absorption. And it is obvious that this is on Chol HaMoed, for on Yom Tov it is forbidden from the perspective of melakhah, as I wrote in siman 509. And know that when one performs hagalah on Erev Pesach after the time of its prohibition—one must be careful in all the matters that one does not need to be careful about beforehand: that they should not be ben yomo, and if they are ben yomo there must be sixty in the water against them, for then the discharge is nullified in the water. And even though one may not nullify a prohibition lekhatchilah, yet here his intention is not to nullify the prohibition but rather to perform hagalah. And regarding that which is not ben yomo—it is permitted even when there is not sixty. And even though a flavoring that impairs is forbidden lekhatchilah, here regarding what is absorbed and where it is impossible in another way without great exertion—it is permitted.

There is one more matter that one must be careful of after the time of its prohibition, and that is not to perform hagalah on a vessel bit by bit, for it is unavoidable that some part of what was already purged will enter the cauldron again even slightly, and it will then return and absorb. Rather, one should perform hagalah on it all at once (Taz, subsection 5). Nevertheless, post facto and in a time of pressing need—one should not prohibit in all the matters that have been explained, for since the essence of the prohibitions is because they will return and absorb, and some hold that even regarding food it does not return and awaken, and all the more so regarding the absorption of vessels (Magen Avraham, subsection 6).

He should first perform hagalah on vessels whose absorption is minimal, and afterward on vessels whose absorption is substantial. He should not leave them in the cauldron for too long, and the water must not cease from its boiling. He should perform hagalah on the cauldron itself at the beginning and at the end. If the cauldron is not ben yomo, he does not need to perform hagalah on it at the beginning and at the end. However, it is the custom to be stringent with all stringencies even before the fifth hour. There is one who raised a difficulty: what benefit is there in hagalah? For the vessels must necessarily absorb something from the hagalah water, and it will return and be awakened on Pesach. However, it has already been explained that regarding absorbed matter, we do not say "it returns and is awakened." (Ibid. And regarding what he questioned the Rema as to why he specified after the sixth hour—see Chok Yaakov subsection 1.) And when he performs hagalah on a small vessel such as a forbidden knife, in a pot that has sixty against it—he may perform hagalah on it even in a kosher pot (Taz end of subsection 5), and the water also remains kosher. This is not like one who nullifies a forbidden substance l'chatchilah, for his intention is to perform hagalah and to extract the forbidden substance. All the more so if it is not ben yomo—there is no concern in this. And know that we are accustomed to perform hagalah on vessels before Pesach in the public bathhouse where there is a very large cauldron, and the fire is strong. It is proper to appoint a person who is a ben Torah over the public hagalah, who shall supervise so that the hagalah is carried out with complete fitness (and see section 19 that with a ben yomo one should not use the water).

One must be careful not to perform hagalah on meat vessels and dairy vessels together, unless one of them is not ben yomo. For if not so—they will absorb from one another. And post facto, it is naten ta'am bar naten ta'am, as is explained in Yoreh Deah siman 95. And all the more so, forbidden vessels must not be ben yoman, and regarding this naten ta'am bar naten ta'am is not applicable, as I have written there. And it is already the custom not to perform hagalah on any vessel while it is ben yoma, even if one is only performing hagalah on a single vessel.

And also the tables and the benches that are in the dining room, which require pouring boiling water over them as has been explained, the common custom is that first one scrubs them very well and waits twenty-four hours, and afterward pours the boiling water over them. And he should pour with alacrity, and he should pour from the pot in which he cooked and not from another vessel. And if he pours into another vessel, they place glowing stones there. And if he places a vessel into the pot in which he cooked, and leaves it there and afterward takes it from there with water – it is considered like a kli rishon (Magen Avraham subsection 9). And there are those who wrote to perform hag'alah three days before Pesach (ibid.). And the custom is not to be so exacting in this.

One should not place many vessels one inside the other to place them in the cauldron and perform hag'alah on them together, unless there is space between them so that the water enters every vessel from the inside and the outside all around. And among us, they place many small vessels inside a sieve that has large holes, and they place the sieve into the cauldron, and they leave the sieve in the cauldron until the boiling water rises over every vessel all around. And he should be careful that in the sieve each one is placed by itself, and they should be loose and not stuck to one another nor to the sieve. And if he performs hag'alah with tongs—he must roll the vessel, for if not, the water will not reach the place of the tongs' grip. And know that the women are accustomed not to use on Pesach the pot from which they pour boiling water onto the tables and the benches, because of the rising steam. And there is no sense or reason in this custom. And they also are accustomed to have a special pot for cooking eggs on Pesach, and for cooking potatoes. And it is not a custom at all, and the women themselves established this.

One may not perform hagalah in the hot springs of Tiberias, meaning hot water that descends from the mountains or a hot spring, even for vessels whose status is that of a kli sheni, because their absorption was by means of fire and therefore the purging must also be by means of water heated by fire, for as it absorbs, so it purges. And even post facto, it appears that it is not effective. And even with water heated by fire—only water is effective for purging, and not other liquids. Similarly, with water mixed with ash—it is not effective for hagalah. But post facto, if one performed hagalah in other liquids—it is valid. And if one performed hagalah for many vessels in a cauldron, until from the many purgings of the vessels the water became like brine—one may no longer perform hagalah in them. But post facto, it is not a hindrance. (See Chayei Adam, subsection 18 in the name of Issur V'Heter, that one should not use hagalah water even if there is sixty. And it seems to me that if it is not a ben yomo and there is sixty—it is permitted, just as I wrote in section 15 that even with a ben yomo it is permitted. And he wrote similarly regarding one that is not a ben yomo.)

The Rambam and the Geonim brought by the Tur require rinsing the vessel in cold water immediately after the hagalah. Such is the custom. The reason is not understood, for if it is so that they should not return and absorb from the boiling water upon them—if we were to concern ourselves with this, behold, immediately upon its ascent from the boiling water it would absorb, for it is impossible to be exact to the moment (the Rosh, end of Avodah Zarah). Furthermore: when it is in the boiling water, there is also this concern (ibid.). Rather, since there is sixty in the water, or it is not ben yomo, we are not concerned with it. And here too it is so. Nevertheless, the custom is so, and one should not change it. We find support for this in Kodashim: "it shall be scoured and rinsed in water"—scouring in hot water and rinsing in cold water. And it is obvious that if they did not rinse it in cold water, we have no concern with it. And it seems to me that the world only practiced this on Pesach, and perhaps as a remembrance of the Temple.