Siman 121

The order of koshering vessels that were used for treifot. And it contains thirty-two seifim: The sages, of blessed memory, stated a great principle regarding the law of the discharge of forbidden substances: that according to the manner of their use, so is their koshering, for as it absorbs, so it discharges, as will be explained. And this applies to their quality and not to their quantity; that is to say, we do not say that according to the number of times a forbidden substance was used in it—for example, if they cooked treifot in the pot one hundred times, we would require one hundred times of koshering—for it is not so, as one time is sufficient to kosher it. And even though it is possible that the absorption of one time is not similar to one hundred times, nevertheless, the discharge—whatever is in its power to discharge, it will discharge the first time, and it will not discharge any more. And even if perhaps a minute trace remains, there is no substance to it. And similarly the opposite: even if a forbidden substance was used in only part of the vessel with boiling liquid, the entire vessel requires hagalah because the absorption spreads throughout the entire vessel; and similarly with libun, as will be explained. And one should not wonder about tablecloths, upon which sometimes a boiling forbidden substance falls from a kli rishon and we permit them through laundering in a kli sheni; for because it is customary to launder them with several washings in ash and laundering in hot and cold water and they beat upon them, this discharges everything it absorbed as if one boiled them in a kli rishon [the Rosh, chapter HaSokher, section 33]. And even without laundering with hot water and ash, it is possible that it would be effective, for laundering is different; for just as it discharges cold through the scrubbing of laundering, so too it discharges heat [Hagahot Ashri, ibid.]. [And the earthenware of a zav and zavah which is tamei until the third time in Zevachim 79b, that is because there is no laundering there, only rinsing; but regarding flax that a niddah spun, where it is difficult there, for Rashi explained there that even if he laundered it many times the saliva does not exit because it is absorbed, see there. And if so, the fat of treifa appears to be absorbed like saliva; and see there in Hagahot Ashri that it remains in "tzarich iyun"; however, laundering by means of beating certainly discharges].

Therefore, one who purchases old vessels from a kutti, in the same manner that they were used, so is their kashering. And one who purchases old vessels that were used for cold substances, such as cups and flasks and their like, rinses them and must scrub them well with water at the time of washing in order to remove and scour the forbidden substance that is upon them, and afterwards he rinses them in water and immerses them in a mikveh and they are permitted. And it appears to me that even though a cold liquid substance that remained in a vessel for twenty-four hours causes the vessel to be forbidden due to the principle that "soaking is like boiling," and according to this, when purchasing large bottles like "flashen" and their like, washing would not avail them since perhaps the forbidden substance remained there for twenty-four hours—nevertheless, we are not concerned for this, for forbidden beverages are not common at all besides wine. And later in siman 135 it will be explained that glass vessels do not become forbidden through the absorption of wine because they are smooth and do not absorb. And such is the widespread custom to purchase all types of old glass vessels from the kuttim, and they scrub them well and wash them in water and immerse them.

And we have heard that there are those who place borit in a flask and melt the borit there by means of a bit of hot water, and they do this for anointing before shaving the hair, and afterwards they rinse them well and drink hot water in them. And there are those who hesitate, saying that one should not use such flasks. However, there is no substance to this; for aside from the fact that they are meticulous regarding cleanliness, as is found in the Gemara, and presumably they have a specific flask for this, but aside from this, he does not leave the borit for a twenty-four hour period in the glass. And even if he leaves it for a twenty-four hour period inside it, it is not forbidden, for you have no greater case of giving a foul taste than borit. And even though the sages forbade a pot that is not of its day even though it gives a foul taste, this is because at the time of the absorption it was for improvement, but in an absorption of impairment, it was not forbidden.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 5: Even vessels whose use is with cold substances, if there is a concern that they heated wine in them, such as silver vessels, the custom is to perform hagalah and one should not deviate. And even chests and tables purchased from the idolaters, the custom is to perform hagalah lest hot liquids were spilled upon them; and this is specifically ab initio, but ex post facto one need not be concerned for all this. And an earthenware vessel that was used with cold substances, since hagalah is impossible, it is considered ex post facto and scouring and rinsing well is sufficient for it, and it is permitted to place in it afterwards even sharp things like vinegar and the like, and certainly hard things like spices and the like. Thus far his words. And similarly, silver vessels or other metal vessels where there is a concern that wine stood in them for twenty-four hours, it is considered kavush and requires hagalah ab initio, but ex post facto one need not be concerned because we follow the majority of a vessel's use. And that which he wrote to perform hagalah on chests and tables, in Orach Chaim siman 451 it was explained that the custom is to render them fit by means of irui with boiling water upon the table, see there. And perhaps regarding chametz, which absorbed a permitted substance, they were lenient in this manner; and also this is only ab initio. And even ab initio, it is only for a plain table, but for beautiful and painted tables where if they were to perform hagalah they would be ruined, even ab initio the custom is not to do so, but only to rinse them very, very well, and particularly since on beautiful tables they are careful that soup should not be spilled upon them, as is known.

However, regarding that which he wrote concerning earthenware vessels that were used with cold substances, etc., it requires clarification; for certainly, regarding ordinary earthenware vessels, if they were merely used, it is forbidden to purchase them, for who is to say that they were not used with hot substances? Rather, he is dealing with vessels such as a flask and the like, such as glazed pots and porcelain cups in which they drink coffee. And even though they put milk into them, nevertheless they are not forbidden because of this; for even if they put boiling milk into them, nevertheless it is only a kli sheni. And even though it is possible that they pour from a kli rishon, which would be iruy that forbids a k'dei klipah, nevertheless, since they first put in the coffee and upon the coffee they pour the milk, and the coffee is certainly a kli sheni within the flask, then automatically the milk also cools slightly, as is understood. But ordinary earthenware vessels are forbidden to be taken from them when they are not completely new.

And there are those who asked a great question: for do we not maintain later in siman 135 that earthenware vessels, even when used with cold substances, require filling and emptying, see there [Shach subsection 15 and Pri Chadash]? And they were pressed to answer that here we are dealing with a case where they were already used before they came into the hand of the idolater, for in such a case they do not absorb further, as is explained there. But it is impossible to say so, for in any such case he should have explained it; and furthermore, for in this siman we are dealing with the purchase of vessels from them, and how can we say that it deals with when they were previously with an Israelite? And in my humble opinion, it appears that there is no difficulty at all, for there we are dealing with vessels in which they put wine, but here we are dealing with vessels whose way is not to be used for wine, as is known among us, that with small earthenware vessels one does not drink wine at all, only with glass vessels. And we are not dealing here with large earthenware bottles in which they put wine, but rather with small earthenware vessels, as I wrote in the previous section. And there is no concern of a prohibited hot substance in them, for in them they only put cold things or drink coffee and the like, and in this there is no concern of prohibition, as I wrote. And certainly large earthenware vessels like bowls and deep dishes in which they eat, it is certainly prohibited to buy them when they are not completely new, and here we are dealing with small ones, as I wrote.

And know that regarding what he wrote concerning an earthenware vessel that was used for cold, that it is permitted to subsequently place in it even sharp things like vinegar etc., his intention is not that it is forbidden to place actual boiling food in them, for it is not so; for we explicitly learned in a Baraita that items that were used for cold are permitted for anything. And so it is explicitly explained in the Rokeach and in the Issur V'Heter siman 58, section 5. This is his wording: Items that were used for cold, one rinses with cold water and it is sufficient, whether for cold or for boiling food, even if they are of earthenware. Thus far his words. Rather, because it is not the way to use it for boiling food, therefore he speaks of sharp cold things that are occasionally placed in them. And furthermore, he comes to teach that regarding a forbidden vessel that was used for boiling forbidden food, even though it is permitted to use it for cold permitted food, as will be explained, nevertheless sharp things, even dry ones and certainly vinegar which is liquid, it is forbidden to use it, and even post facto it is possible that it is forbidden, as the Darkhei Moshe wrote in this siman, letter 4. This is his wording: And I saw some people who are lenient regarding vinegar to place it in a forbidden vessel etc. and it is not so, for on the contrary etc. Thus far his words. [See Turei Zahav subsection 6 who wrote, and this is his wording: In the Darkhei Moshe he wrote, "I saw that there are those who are lenient regarding vinegar etc. however, by means of rinsing etc. it is permitted, as the Rashba wrote at the end of this siman regarding other sharp things." Thus far his words. And his words are puzzling, for in the Darkhei Moshe he wrote this regarding a forbidden vessel that was used for hot food, and it can be said there that even in all vessels whose use is for hot food etc. "and I saw some people etc." Thus far his words. And in such a case it is forbidden even by means of rinsing and washing. And the Rashba only spoke of cutting a sharp thing like a radish with a knife, see there in the Tur at the end of this siman; but regarding vinegar, the Darkhei Moshe wrote that it extracts more, and this is in a forbidden vessel that was used for hot food, and what is the connection between one and the other? And delve into this].

He further wrote in section 1: There are places where they practiced permissiveness to put wine in vessels whose planks are joined with chelev, because the nature of wine is to flee from chelev, and the chelev congeals and stands by itself and does not touch the wine at all. Thus far his words. And furthermore, the wine that touches the chelev is already mixed with the other wine, and this is not like one who nullifies a prohibited substance l'chatchilah, since his intention is not to nullify it and benefit from the prohibited substance, but rather his intention is to repair the vessel and join its cracks [Pri Chadash siman 64, subsection 26 in the name of the Rivash, see there]. And this is like honey into which ants have fallen, as was explained in siman 84, that one should heat the honey until it is melted and strain it, see there [ibid.]. And according to this, it is not specifically wine, for the same applies to other liquids which are permitted [SeMag ibid.]. And one should only permit this when the chelev is placed between the planks and not inside it [ibid.].

If one purchased from them vessels that were used with heat, such as pots and the like in which they cook prohibited food, whether they are of metal, wood, or stone, he must perform hagala on them and they are kosher. Those of metal require tevilla afterward. However, if post facto he performed tevilla on them and afterward performed hagala, they are permitted. Some say that he must return and perform tevilla on them after the hagala, for it is like one who immerses while holding a sheretz in his hand. But the primary view is like the first opinion, for this tevilla is not due to impurity but is a decree of the verse, as I wrote in siman 120; see there. And even according to the latter opinion, in a case where it is not ben yomo they agree that he does not need to return and perform tevilla, for since according to Torah law it is permitted, this is not like a sheretz in his hand. The Tur wrote that in a response of Rav Hai Gaon it is stated that stone vessels have the law of earthenware vessels and hagala does not avail them, but Rav Alfas wrote that their law is like vessels of rinsing, and such is the primary view. Thus far his words. And the opinion of the Gaon was not brought at all in the Shulchan Aruch. Now, in the Gemara are found "kurzalot stones" in Shabbat [81a], and the Aruch explained: soft stones; and so it is implied from the commentary of Rashi there who explained: split stones, see there. And certainly such stones have the law of earthenware, and perhaps the words of the Gaon refer to such stones. Bone vessels have the law of metal vessels. Spoons made of horn, it is explained in Orach Chaim siman 451 that they have no remedy through hagala, for since they are ruined by hot water, we fear perhaps he will spare them. And the same applies to knives whose handle is of horn, and likewise if the handle is attached with glue, he will fear lest the glue be ruined [Taz and Magen Avraham there, subsection 19]. Glass vessels are not used with heat. The details of the laws of hagala and libun are explained there in Orach Chaim [pearl mother is strong and permitted with hagala].

Items that are used by means of fire and not by means of cooking, such as spits and grills, hagalah is not effective for them and they require libun in fire; for just as their use is by means of fire, so is their kashering by means of fire. And if one performed hagalah on a vessel that requires libun, he has done nothing, and it is forbidden to use it with hot substances even not by means of fire, for since it still contains the absorption of the forbidden substance—as it was not entirely expelled—we fear lest it expel the forbidden substance into the second hot substances [Taz, subsection 4]. However, it is permitted to use it with cold substances in a temporary manner, such as while traveling, with a forbidden vessel that absorbed by means of cooking or even by means of fire, through rinsing and scrubbing well. And this is specifically in a chance occurrence, such as while traveling or if he is in the house of a Cuthean, and similarly post facto even in the house of an Israelite; but ab initio it is forbidden to use a forbidden vessel that absorbed hot substances even for cold use, and it requires hagalah or libun because we fear lest he use it with hot substances. And there was an incident where they found expensive plates in the house of a certain minister, and according to those who understand, it is not their way to use them with hot substances, and they permitted an Israelite to use them with cold substances; for since even when they were certainly used with hot substances there is no prohibition to use them with cold substances except because of a decree, therefore in a case of doubt it is not proper to be stringent, and so too in any similar case.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: A pan in which one fries, even though regarding chametz on Pesach it is sufficient for it to have hagalah, regarding other prohibitions it requires libun. Thus far his words. And know that the Rashba and the Rosh are divided regarding a pan, for the Rashba wrote in Torat HaBayit [Bayit 4, Sha'ar 4], and this is his wording: It stands to reason to me that this metal pan in which one fries meat and fish in oil over the fire has no koshering except through libun, like a grill, etc., for sometimes one fries in it with a small amount of oil, and most times the oil in it is consumed and they return and add more, and sometimes the oil does not travel over its entire surface and it absorbs the prohibition from a place where the oil does not float over it, and it is like use by way of fire and requires libun. Thus far his words. But the Rosh wrote in a Responsum, and this is his wording: And a pan, some say that hagalah is not sufficient for it, etc., and their reasoning does not stand to reason, for if we come to be concerned for this, if so, all metal pots, sometimes from a lack of broth the cooked food is scorched and burnt and sticks to the walls of the pot and they would require libun, and we have not found anyone who was concerned for this. Thus far his words in Responsa, Klal 14, see there. And for the Rashba, one could say that in a pot it is a remote occurrence, but in a pan it is so many times. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, decided regarding chametz on Pesach like the Rosh because it absorbed permitted matter, and furthermore, the liquid itself never contains a prohibition of chametz, which is not the case regarding the absorption of prohibitions, for it absorbed prohibited matter. And furthermore, for it is possible that the liquid itself, such as the fat, was of a prohibition, such as pig fat or treif fat, and it absorbed not through the medium of water. And there is a practical difference between the two reasons, for according to the reason that it absorbed permitted matter, when one koshers a pan from meat to milk or from milk to meat, hagalah is sufficient for it, for this also absorbed permitted matter; but according to the second reason, it requires libun. And one should be stringent like the second reason [see Shach subsection 8 and Magen Avraham in Orach Chaim siman 451 in the Machatzit HaShekel subsection 16]. And some say that from meat to milk or from milk to meat, according to everyone hagalah is sufficient [the Grah]. And even though there is one who holds that in general one should not kosher from meat to milk or from milk to meat [see Magen Avraham siman 509 in the name of the Rav of Pozna], one should not be concerned for this at all, and we should not decree decrees from our own minds that which the sages did not decree. And so it is explicitly explained from the words of the Tur in this siman, who wrote: And so if one performs hagalah on a vessel from meat to milk or vice versa, it must not be ben yomo, etc. Thus far his words. And it is a simple matter that baking sheets on which one bakes prohibited foods, and so too bowls in which one bakes a prohibited pastida, require libun and hagalah is not sufficient for them.

The Tur wrote: How is the hagalah performed? One must scrub the vessel well in order to remove the rust within it, and afterward perform hagalah. If it is a kli rishon, such as vats and pots, one performs hagalah in a kli rishon; and it is called a kli rishon while it is boiling even if it is not upon the fire. And some say if one used the vessel while it was upon the fire, the hagalah must also be specifically in a vessel that has the fire moving beneath it, and this is more reasonable [and so it is explicitly proven from the Yerushalmi, chapter Kirah, halacha 4, see there and examine carefully]. And if the vessel is large such that he cannot insert all of it at once, he should insert half of it and afterward its second half, and that is sufficient for it. And if it is long such that even this does not suffice for it, he should perform libun in the middle. And a large vat that he cannot insert into another, he should make for it a rim of clay or dough so that he can fill it well in order that the water will come over its entire rim, or he should insert into it a burning coal and through this the water will boil and rise over its entire rim. Thus far his words. And all the more so if he inserts into it glowing stones, for through this the boiling is intense, and then it is permitted in any manner.

He further wrote: A vessel that has a patch is not permitted through hagalah, because that which is absorbed beneath the patch is not expelled through hagalah, and one must remove the patch before he performs hagalah on it. Thus far his words. However, regarding jars whose bases the craftsmen mark when they are new, it is permitted to perform hagalah, and similarly anything like this, for it was certainly done while new [Darkhei Moshe, letter 6]. Therefore, a patch that was made before the usage of the forbidden substance is of no concern to us, as was written in Orach Chaim, siman 451. It is further explained there that if one places coals upon the location of the patch until the substance of the forbidden matter is burnt, and afterwards performs hagalah, it is also permitted. However, even in this case, if the absorption preceded the patch, one must place enough coals until sparks fly from it [Magen Avraham ibid., subsection 27].

Vessels that require hagalah, if covering them with tin—which is called "aus-weissen"—is effective, and the tin does not adhere to the vessel without libun by means of fire as is known to craftsmen, it appears that it is much better than hagalah. And even if it is a light libun, nevertheless it is better than hagalah. And there are those who say that it requires hagalah afterward, but it is not logical, for if so, the hagalah would not benefit them since the tin intervenes between them [both opinions are in the Magen Avraham there]. And there is no doubt in the matter, for it is certainly better than hagalah, and so wrote our teacher Eliyahu Mizrachi in his Responsa, siman 43, see there. And such is the simple custom [and so it appears is the opinion of the Magen Avraham there; and there are those who wish to be stringent and require hagalah afterward, but there is no reason for this].

The covers have the same law as the vessel itself; if it is a pot cover, the cover requires hagalah, and if it is a cover for forbidden food, it requires libun, as is written in Orach Chaim there. A forbidden mortar is permitted with hagalah or by placing boiling water into it and placing a glowing stone inside it. Some are stringent to require libun for a mortar, but a light libun is sufficient, meaning that straw is burned upon it from the outside; and ex post facto, it is permitted with hagalah if it has no pits. A wooden mortar must be scraped with a professional tool until it is smooth and afterwards he performs hagalah, and if it is smooth and has no pits, he performs hagalah without scraping; see in Orach Chaim there. A forbidden shovel, which is called a "lapita," it is explained above in siman 108 how its kashering is performed.

The Tur wrote: And if one comes to pour upon it from a first vessel to kasher it, Rabbeinu Tam wrote that it is considered like a first vessel, and the Rashbam wrote that pouring is not considered like a first vessel. And my father, my teacher, of blessed memory, wrote that here certainly pouring is not effective, for even if we consider it like a first vessel, that is specifically to extract from it a small amount, the thickness of a peel, but it does not have the power to extract from it all its forbidden substance absorbed within it. However, a vessel that was only used by means of pouring, it is sufficient for it also to be kashered by means of pouring. And a vessel that was only used in a second vessel, one performs hagalah on it in a second vessel and it is sufficient. And vessels used for sharp things, such as a mortar in which one crushes garlic and peppers with forbidden things, even if they were only used in this manner with cold substances, they require hagalah. Thus far his words. And regarding chametz on Pesach, it was explained there in Orach Chaim siman 451, see there.

The Tur further wrote, and this is his wording: Rav Alfas wrote that one must leave the vessel in the water until it expels all the forbidden substance within it, but the custom is not so, for who knows how to estimate when it will expel everything? For if we were to say it must be in the same manner as it was used, hagalah would not be effective for them, since the forbidden substance was used in it for many days, and how could it expel it in one instance? Rather, it is certain that with one hagalah it expels everything, and there is no difference whether one leaves it inside or removes it immediately, and so we practice. Thus far his words. And in Tur Orach Chaim siman 452, he wrote in this language: The Rif wrote that one soaks the vessels inside the cauldron until they expel. And the Avi HaEzri wrote: Who knows how to estimate the measure of the expulsion? 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 the flavor is spoiled, they do not forbid, provided that he performs hagalah during the permitted time before the fifth hour, for after its prohibition, its spoilage does not permit, etc. Thus far his words. And also in this siman, the Tur wrote that one should not perform hagalah unless the vessel is not ben yomo or there is sixty in the water against it, see there. And the matters require explanation.

This is the wording of the Rashba in Torat HaBayit [House 4, Gate 4]: It is necessary to be precise regarding how long the vessel being purged must remain within the water in which it is purged, and furthermore, how this hagalah removes the prohibition, for the vessel emits and absorbs, and if it emitted the prohibition and then re-absorbed what was emitted, it has returned to its previous state, etc. Therefore, Ri explained that one never purges except in one of two ways: either one purges in a kosher vessel and there is sixty times the volume of the water against the entire vessel one is purging, etc., then the emission of the vessel is nullified within them, etc. And so too it is possible to purge a vessel that is not ben yomo in a prohibited vessel that is not ben yomo, etc., and even though it re-absorbs, there is no concern, for natat bar natat de-heteira is permitted. And if you say, if so, what have we gained, for even before hagalah that which is within the vessel is tainted, and nevertheless it requires hagalah? It is not so, for there, the beginning of its absorption was from a state of improvement, and we view it as if it remains in its state of improvement until it emits, for the sages were concerned that if you permit him to use it after its day, he will come to use it even within its day; but anything that absorbs from a state of taint is permitted, etc. And the vessel must remain within the water for a duration that appears by a good estimation that it has emitted what it absorbed, etc. Thus far his words. And the Ra'ah in Bedek HaBayit wrote there in the name of the Ramban, of blessed memory, that the nature of water is to cause the emission of what is absorbed in the pot and not to cause absorption into it. And so wrote the Rashba himself there in Mishmeret HaBayit, that the Ramban told him so, and he raised an objection against him, see there [see Tosafot Chullin 108b, starting with "she-nafal"].

And according to this, the words of the Tur will be clarified, that the opinion of the Rif is like the opinion of the Rashba, and it also deals with either one who performs hagalah in a vessel that contains sixty times the volume of the vessel undergoing hagalah, or they are not ben yomo. Therefore, it is certainly good to let it remain for a long time in the water so that it will expel all that is absorbed within it, and we do not fear that it will return and absorb for the reason the Rashba wrote. Or, perhaps he holds like the Ramban that water causes expulsion and does not cause absorption, and according to this, one could perform hagalah even on a ben yomo and without sixty, obviously. And the Tur rejected this, for who knows how to estimate this? And furthermore, behold the absorbed matter was there for many days, etc., meaning that there is no benefit in this, and therefore there is no difference between letting it remain for a long time and removing it immediately. And in Tur Orach Chaim, he added to say that we are accustomed to insert it and remove it immediately, see there; meaning that there is no benefit in remaining here, as I wrote here, for if so, we would require it to remain for as long as it was used. And perforce you must say that in one moment it expels all that is absorbed. And there he added to say that, on the contrary, we are precise to remove it immediately so that it does not absorb from that which was expelled into the pot undergoing hagalah, according to the difficulty of the Rashba. And even though the Rashba answered this as I wrote, nevertheless, why should we enter into this to absorb back what it expelled? And this is why he added there the reason of the Avi HaEzri, that perhaps they will remain within it and return and absorb. [See the Bach who took issue with the Tur, for the absorbed matter from several days is nosein ta'am lifgam, see there; and according to what I wrote, the intention of the Tur is also thus. And nevertheless, his words are good and straightforward. Also, what he wrote that the measure of remaining in this is like the measure of kavishah so that they may place it on the fire and it will begin to boil, I do not know what the connection is between them. And there are yet other opinions on this matter, and they will be clarified, if it please G-d, in Orach Chaim siman 452, and see there in the Magen Avraham].

He further wrote: and one may not perform hagalah on a vessel until it is not "ben yomo," or there must be sixty times its volume in the water used for hagalah. But if it is "ben yomo" and there is not sixty times its volume in the water, the hagalah is not effective; and furthermore, even the vessel in which one performs the hagalah also becomes forbidden if it was a permitted vessel. And similarly, if one performs hagalah on a meat vessel in order to eat dairy in it, or vice versa, it must not be "ben yomo." And if one performs hagalah in a forbidden vessel, it must not be "ben yomo," etc. Thus far his words. And even though with a meat vessel or a dairy vessel, even if it is "ben yomo," it is "not bar not" of a permitted substance, nevertheless he was stringent ab initio so as not to err with a forbidden vessel [Bach in the name of the Semak]. And with vessels that are not "ben yomo," it is permitted to perform hagalah on several vessels one after another, and such is the common custom.

He further wrote that after the hagalah, one should rinse it in cold water in the manner that one rinses a cup. Rashi wrote that one must rinse it immediately in cold water while the hot water is still upon it, so that it does not return and absorb. Ri wrote that even if one did not rinse it immediately, it is not forbidden, for it does not return and absorb. Nevertheless, it is the custom to rinse it immediately, and so it is proper to do. Thus far his words. For behold, the Rishonim labored over this, regarding the custom to rinse in cold water after the hagalah, for this is like the matter that was in the context of Kodashim, as it is written: "And it shall be scoured and rinsed in water," and our sages of blessed memory expounded in Zevachim: scouring in hot water and rinsing in cold water. And this is a scriptural decree in Kodashim, but what matter is it to Chullin? For behold, even for Terumah one does not require scouring and rinsing, and even for Kodashim Kalim it does not require scouring and rinsing according to one Tanna, as is found in Zevachim [96b], and certainly so regarding Chullin. And some bring proof from what they said in Zevachim [97a] regarding a Baraita where Rabbi says: scouring and rinsing in cold water, and the Sages say: scouring in hot water and rinsing in cold water, just as it is with the hagalah of gentiles, see there. Consequently, even in hagalah one requires cold water [see Torat HaBayit of the Rashba there]. However, Rashi explained there that it refers to the hot water, see there. Therefore, Rashi wrote that the reason is to rinse away the hagalah water which is mixed with the forbidden substance; even though it is not "of its day," nevertheless it is correct to remove it so that it does not return and absorb from them. To Ri this did not seem so, for even without this it would not absorb further, but rather the custom is so. And perhaps the custom is not because of a concern of a forbidden substance, but rather because of strengthening the vessel, for this is the "tempering" regarding which on Shabbat [41b] it asks: "But is he not tempering?" and Rashi explained that when a metal vessel is hot and one puts cold water into it, it strengthens the vessel, see there. And the Rambam in chapter 17 of Ma'akhalot Assurot did not mention this at all. Also among us, the custom throughout the year when performing hagalah on a vessel is not to rinse it in cold water, only before Pesach during the hagalah for Pesach; and perhaps because of the stringency of the prohibition of chametz they were more concerned. However, it is proper to be careful of this always, since the early authorities mentioned this.

Regarding libun, there is no distinction between whether it is "within its day" or not "within its day," and similarly there is no distinction between whether there is a patch upon it or there is no patch upon it [Darkhei Moshe, letter 15], for the fire consumes everything. The measure of libun is until sparks fly from it. And some say that if one performs libun until, were one to place straw upon it, sparks would fly from it, this is sufficient; for if not so, that tripa under which they bake pastida and perform libun upon it to bake fladon afterward—if it were necessary to perform libun upon it until sparks fly from it, it would be completely ruined [Hagahot Maimoniot, chapter 17, letter 5]. And see in Orach Chaim, siman 451, section 4, what our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this. And one should not use the hagalah water, nor even the water with which they rinse them afterward, and also the water that they pour after the libun is not fit for use, even though libun completely consumes the forbidden substance, and Israel are holy.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 6: Metal vessels, even though there are those who say that if one used a prohibited substance in part of it, the whole of it becomes prohibited because "part of it is hot, all of it is hot," nevertheless, regarding its kashering, the kashering is not effective for it until he kashers all of it, whether regarding hagalah or regarding libun. Thus far his words. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote on this, and this is his wording: And specifically if he used all of it, but if it is known that he only used part of it, "as it absorbs, so it emits." Thus far his words. And it is clear that he explains the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in this manner: for it is certain that kashering is not inferior to usage, as it is a great principle that "as it absorbs, so it emits." And this is what he is saying: Even though there are those who say that if he used part of it, all of it becomes prohibited because "part of it is hot, all of it is hot," and if so, I would say that also regarding kashering the law is so, that "part of it is hot, all of it is hot," meaning even if the usage was in all of it, kashering part of it would be effective because the part causes the whole to emit; he comes to teach us that this is not so, for we say literally "as it absorbs, so it emits," that if he used all of it, it requires kashering all of it, and if he used part of it, kashering part of it is sufficient.

And in truth, one should interpret the words of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in this manner: that kashering is required for the whole of it even with usage of a part of it. And so it is explicitly explained from his words in his great work, where he cited the wording of the Ran who wrote, and this is his wording: From this we learn that regarding metal vessels, when one uses a part of it, as long as one kashers a part of it, it is sufficient; and others say since a part of it was hot, the whole of it was hot, and he must kasher the whole of it, etc. Thus far his words. And he establishes the words of the Rashba that the Tur cited, and also the words of the Rasha, as the "others," and he ruled accordingly in practice; see there. And if so, his intention in the Shulchan Aruch is as I have written. Nevertheless, our teacher, the Rema, does not hold accordingly in the law, and therefore he explained explicitly not according to this opinion. And he did not write the phrasing of "there are those who say" because in the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, one can also interpret it thus, as is common in the Shulchan Aruch in such cases. And also the Tur holds accordingly, that if one used a part of it, kashering a part of it is sufficient; see there. And regarding the law, there is one who rejected his words and ruled as the practical halacha that even when one used a part of it, it requires kashering for the whole of it, whether by libun or by hagalah [Taz, subsection 7]. And there is one who ruled like our teacher, the Rema, and even ab initio one does not require kashering except in the place of usage, whether by hagalah or by libun [Pri Chadash, subsection 15]. And that which is written in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim siman 451, that one should ab initio perform hagalah also on the handles of the vessels, see there, this is because during the course of the year one uses chametz also on the handles themselves [ibid.]. And there are those who say that regarding hagalah, the primary view is like the words of our teacher, the Rema, but regarding libun, certainly it requires libun for the whole of it even with usage of a part of it [Shach, subsection 17], for libun does not expel the prohibition but rather consumes it, and when it consumes that part and one uses it with permitted food, it will expel the prohibition from the place where it was not consumed. And also regarding hagalah, ab initio one should perform hagalah on the whole of it even with usage of a part of it [ibid., subsection 18]. However, regarding meat that was not salted which was roasted on a spit, and afterwards they roasted on it meat that was salted, one should permit it without libun at all on the grounds that "the fire draws out," as I wrote in siman 76 [Taz, ibid.]. And ab initio one should be stringent like the opinion of those who prohibit, but ex post facto one may rely on the opinion of those who permit, and particularly in a case of some loss, since this is the opinion of the Tur and our teacher, the Rema.

It is a known matter that for earthenware vessels, hagalah and libun are of no avail, even if one placed coals inside it and even if one performed libun on it in an oven full of coals; it has no remedy except breaking, unless by returning it to the kilns where they make pots, for then "new faces have come here." And in an oven, even though "new faces have come here" as well, nevertheless the sages, of blessed memory, decreed [Pesachim 30b] that perhaps he will have pity on them so that they do not burst and will remove them before the completion of the libun. However, in kilns this is not applicable, for since he brings them into such a great heat where they perform libun on new pots, he certainly will not have pity [Tur]. Furthermore, there the libun is effective even without a delay because the heat is great. And in the Tur, Orach Chaim siman 451, and in the Beit Yosef there in his great book, it is explained that there is a vessel called a kuvya for which heating from within is effective even though its way is to be heated from without [according to the version of the Gemara before us, Pesachim 30b, see there]. And it is further explained there that for a metal pot, heating from within is effective, for regarding metal there is no concern for "perhaps they will burst," see there.

This is the wording of the Tur: The author of the Ittur wrote, "If I were not afraid of the masters, I would say that even an earthenware vessel, in a pot that is not 'of its day,' since its prohibition is rabbinic, one may perform hagalah three times and it is sufficient." And he brought proof from the Yerushalmi [Terumot chapter 11, halacha 4], and so wrote the Rashba. And the conclusion of his words is that perhaps they only permitted this regarding a rabbinic prohibition that has no root in the Torah, such as terumah and challah in the diaspora in this time, and likewise regarding their cooking; but other rabbinic prohibitions, they treated them with stringency like those of the Torah, and it is proper to be concerned not to be lenient regarding them. Thus far the words of the Tur. Therefore, this law was not brought at all in the Shulchan Aruch, except in siman 113 regarding their cooking; see there. And the Rashba, of blessed memory, in Torat HaBayit there, elaborated on this and wrote that regarding the law, it appears to him as the primary view that in all rabbinic prohibitions it is permitted in such a manner, and that so wrote the Rav Shmuel HaTzarfati, of blessed memory; see there. And the Tur did not bring the end of his words because he held not to be lenient in this in practice. And behold, Heaven forbid to transgress the words of the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, but there is a great wonder in this, for also in the Yerushalmi Pesachim [chapter 3, halacha 1] it is stated so regarding chametz, and chametz certainly has a root in the Torah. This is the wording of the Yerushalmi there: Rabbi Yirmeyah in the name of Rav: A pot in which one cooked chametz, he may not cook in it from that same species until after Pesach, but from a different species it is permitted, provided it is by means of three cooked dishes. Thus far its words. And the commentator has already been aroused by this; see there.

Therefore, we have permitted the metal pots in our country called "Preissische Töpfe," which are entirely iron, except that on the inside there is a certain white coating, and it is not known if it is of earthenware or of lead, for the matter is a secret among the craftsmen. All the pots in the country, whether of meat or of milk, are all of this type, and every single day it happens that meat spills into milk and vice versa, as is known. There was great distress, and it was difficult to perform libun on them, for libun requires great expertise, and the loss was great as they are very expensive and many cracked during their libun. We permitted them to be purged with hag'alah three times after twenty-four hours. For since the Ittur, the Rashba, and the French Ri'ash lean toward being entirely lenient even with absolute earthenware, and only the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch were concerned for this stringency—that perhaps the Yerushalmi Terumot only permitted it for something that has no root in the Torah, while in the Yerushalmi Pesachim it is explained that it is permitted for all prohibitions, as I have written—therefore, although Heaven forbid that we should transgress their words, nevertheless, in a doubt of a coating of earthenware or metal, when the essence of the pot is certainly of metal, it is simple that one should be lenient in such a clear law and have pity on the money of Israel. There is some proof that the coating is of metal and not of earthenware from the verse in Daniel [2:43], "but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay." This shows that metal and earthenware are unlikely to mix and stick together. Therefore, reason suggests that the coating is of tin; see siman 122, section 2. Aside from this, there is proof for the Ittur from what we wrote in siman 111, section 3; see there well.

The preparation of a knife is different from all other vessels, and our teachers disagreed regarding it. For in the Mishnah we learned: The spit and the grill, one whitens them in fire; the knife, one whets it and it is pure. That is to say, one sharpens it with a whetstone. The plain meaning of the language implies that this is for using it with hot food, just as with a spit and a grill, and it comes to teach us that for a knife there is an additional preparation of sharpening. And that which they said in the Gemara at the end of the tractate, "and he plunges it ten times into the ground etc." and to eat cold food with it, does not refer to our Mishnah; rather, it is a matter unto itself. It comes to teach us that to use it for cold food, rinsing is not sufficient as with other vessels, but it requires plunging into the ground because with a knife there is the pressure of the knife, and they were stringent regarding it. However, the preparation in the Mishnah is for hot food. And so the Rambam and the Bartenura explained in the commentary on the Mishnah. This is his wording: One whets it—he plunges it ten times into the ground etc. and eats cold food with it, or he sharpens it with its whetstone and eats with it even hot foods etc. Thus far his words.

And this is the opinion of the Rambam in chapter 17, law 8, and this is his wording: One who purchases a knife from a gentile must heat it to a white heat in fire or sharpen it with its grindstone. And if it was a fine knife that has no nicks, it is sufficient for him if he plunges it into hard ground ten times, and he may eat cold food with it. And if there were nicks in it, or if it was fine and he desires to eat hot food with it or to slaughter with it, he must heat it to a white heat or sharpen all of it. Thus far his words.

But Rashi, of blessed memory, and the Tosafot explained that that which we learned in the Mishnah, "the knife, he whets it," this is for cold [food], because for hot [food] it was included in the previous [ruling] regarding hagalah or libun; and only because for cold [food] it is more stringent than other vessels due to the "pressure of the knife," therefore it taught it. And the Gemara added that for this it also requires driving it into the ground ten times. And behold, in truth, it is a wondrous thing to require for cold [food] an additional correction besides whetting. Therefore, in truth, some say that the intention is either whetting or driving [into the ground]. And this is the opinion of the Tur, who wrote: Old knives, etc., whether large or small, if he comes to use them for cold [food], he drives it, etc., or whets it on a whetstone, etc. Thus far his words. But Rashi wrote, and this is his wording: And he drives it even though he whetted it; and some say he rubs it with a woolen cloth that is not smooth and removes the grease. Thus far his words. And the explanation of his words is that it was difficult for him how it is possible to require for cold [food] another thing besides whetting, and therefore he explained another explanation for "whets," that it is a mere rubbing, and therefore it requires for this also driving into the ground [Maharsha, see there].

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 7 ruled like the Rambam, and this is his wording: An old knife, whether large or small, purchased from a gentile—if one comes to use it for cold items, if it has no pits, he plunges it ten times into hard ground, and it is necessary that each and every plunging be into hard ground; therefore, he should not plunge it into a place where he performed another plunging. And even to cut a sharp item with it, such as a radish, this is sufficient. And to use it permanently is no worse than other vessels which we are accustomed to perform hagalah upon even for cold items. And if it has pits, or if he wishes to cut hot items with it or to slaughter with it, he must perform libun or sharpen it well with a blacksmith's whetstone over its entire surface. Thus far his words. And this is according to the opinion of the Rambam. And from their words a leniency is heard, that sharpening is effective like libun, and also a stringency, that specifically libun is required but hagalah is not effective even for a small knife, for so it is taught in the Tosefta: Knives and spits, one performs libun on them in fire. And there are those who distinguished between a large one with which one roasts meat over the fire and a small one, because sometimes it is the way to turn meat with them over coals [see Tosafot at the end of HaSoker, what they wrote in the name of Riva].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote: And there are those who say that sharpening is only effective to cut cold items with it, but not regarding hot items, and such is the custom ab initio; and if he cannot libun the knife well because of the handle, he should libun it and then perform hagalah afterward. However, if he performed libun but did not perform hagalah, even if it has pits, or if he performed hagalah but did not perform libun and it has no pits, and he cut hot food with it, it is not forbidden even if the knife was ben yomo. And if he sharpened it well with a grindstone in every place and performs hagalah afterward, it is effective even ab initio like libun, if he can clean the pits that are in it. Thus far his words. And he ruled according to the opinion of Rashi. And from what he wrote, "and such is the custom ab initio," it implies that the essential law is according to the opinion of the Rambam, but ab initio they practiced like Rashi. And also that which he requires libun is also only ab initio, and therefore post facto when he cut hot food by means of hagalah, it is permitted. And also sharpening and hagalah are permitted ab initio because he holds that the essential law is that hagalah alone is sufficient, and this is according to the opinion of the Tosafot there. However, I wonder why he did not write that this is only regarding a small [vessel], but regarding a large [vessel] even post facto the libun is indispensable. Therefore, it appears that he holds that even for a large [vessel] hagalah is effective, just as regarding chametz in Orach Chaim siman 451. and this appears to be the opinion of the Tur as well, see there. And only ab initio should one be stringent according to the opinion of those who forbid and require libun, for from chametz there is no proof, as it absorbed permitted matter, therefore hagalah is sufficient [Tosafot ibid.]. And the Tur wrote in the name of the Rosh that even according to those who require libun, even for a small knife, libun at the tip of the knife is sufficient, in the manner that it was used, see there. And to cut cold items, it requires ne'itzah ten times even not for a sharp item, and it is effective even for a sharp item. And it appears to me that in our country, where they do not roast meat over the fire, a knife that became treif does not require libun and hagalah is sufficient. And only regarding simple knives of the government houses, where occasionally they cut with them while it is still over the fire, one should be stringent with libun or with sharpening and hagalah as I wrote. And small knives are completely unlikely in our times to be used with boiling heat, and for the most part they are of milk, that they cut cheese with them and spread butter with them, and certainly hagalah is sufficient. And know that there is one who forbids, that just as one renders vessels fit from the absorption of forbidden matter, so too one must render them fit when they were used for disgusting things like urine and the like. And our teacher, the Beit Yosef, already rejected these words in his great book at the end of this siman, that it requires nothing but scrubbing, see there.