Immersion of utensils
[1] (Halacha 175)
Question: From where do we learn the obligation of tevilas keilim?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Avodah Zarah1 says: One who buys utensils for use from idolaters - that which its way is to be immersed, he shall immerse', and in the Gemara it is explained: 'It was taught: and all of them require tevilah in forty se'ah. From where are these matters derived? Rava said, for the pasuk states: כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר, the pasuk added for you another taharah.
Explanation of the matter - In parshas Matos, after Bnei Yisroel went out to take Hashem's vengeance upon the Midianites, the Torah writes with regard to the kashering of the vessels of the non-Jews that were taken as spoil and in which forbidden things were absorbed2: 'כל דבר אשר יבא באש (vessels whose use is with fire) תעבירו באש וטהר'. The word וטהר appears superfluous, and therefore Rava expounds: 'the pasuk added for you another taharah' after passing it through fire, to permit it from gi'ulei goyim - namely, through tevilah.
And although the Torah is dealing with vessels that have already absorbed issur, the Gemara there says: 'Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: even new vessels require tevilah, for old ones that were made white-hot are considered like new ones, and even so they require tevilah'. That is, the very fact that the vessel was in the ownership of the non-Jew requires tevilah.
★★★
Question: Is this derivation from the pasuk a full derivation from the Torah, or is it only an asmachta and the obligation is mid'rabbanan?
Answer: The Rishonim differ in this matter. Rashi there in the sugya3 (d"h zuza) wrote: 'it is a gezeiras hakasuv', and accordingly, in his view the obligation of tevilah is mid'oraisa. And so too the Smak4 counted the obligation of tevilah among the count of the taryag mitzvos: 'to immerse vessels, as it is written וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים אך במי נדה יתחטא ..'. And such is the view of most of the Rishonim5.
However the Rambam6 wrote: 'This tevilah, that we immerse the seudah vessels acquired from the akum .. is midivrei sofrim, and there is an allusion to it in כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש וטהר, and from the tradition they learned that it speaks only of their taharah .. and since it is written וטהר, the Chachomim said: the pasuk added for it a taharah after passing it through fire, to permit it from gi'ulei akum'7. And so too wrote the Tosfos Rid in Maseches Avodah Zarah there: 'tevilah is mid'rabbanan'8.
And we find in the Ramban in his commentary on the Torah that he was uncertain in the matter: 'And my heart still muses, to say that this tevilah is midivreihem and they made the verse an asmachta; and so too Onkelos translates it with the chitui of the sprinkling of the ashes of the parah. And the Chachomim required it for metal vessels alone, because among them are vessels whose use is with fire, and in a kli rishon, and in a kli sheini, and cold; and this requires study'9.
And regarding the view of the Shulchan Aruch, from what he wrote10: 'a minor is not believed regarding tevilas keilim', the Taz11 and the Be'er HaGolah12 wrote that this is because tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa. And so too may be proven from the words of the Shulchan Aruch in se'if 9, as explained in the Beis Yosef, and in the Biur HaGra13.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe14: 'that the essential view is like the words of those who say that tevilas keilim is from the Torah'15.
★★★
Question: What is the reason for this tevilah?
Answer: The reason for the tevilah is explained in the Yerushalmi16: 'because they went out from the tumah of the non-Jew and entered into the kedushah of Yisroel'. And this reason is brought in the Beis Yosef YD siman 120, and in the Taz17 there.
And a great principle we find in the words of the Ritva18: 'Seudah vessels are the ones spoken of in the parshah. The explanation is: since they will ultimately be used for issur and they have gone out to kedushah, the pasuk required tevilah for them even when new; which is not so with a zuza d'sarbala (=scissors with which one cuts woollen garments, which do not require tevilah)19. That is, the basis of the obligation of tevilah is the possibility of the future use by the non-Jew.
And we will conclude with the words of the Issur V'Heter HaAroch20 who wrote: 'The tevilah is not on account of the expelling of issur, for one must immerse even a new vessel; rather it is only to remove the tumah from it and to bring it into the kedushah of Yisroel, since Hashem Elokim chose us for His portion and separated us from those who err and sanctified us with His kedushah, as it is stated ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים להיות לי, and it is written והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים כי קדוש אני. אני ה' אלהיכם'.
In the coming days we will discuss the practical details of tevilas keilim.
Notes:
1 75b ↩
2 Bamidbar 31:23 ↩
3 d"h zuza ↩
4 Mitzvah 199 ↩
5 They are referenced in Tevilas Keilim pp. 34-35 ↩
6 Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros ch. 17 halacha 5 ↩
7 See Ritva, Avodah Zarah 75b, d"h hava amina. Ran daf 39b, sof d"h Gemara. Beis Yosef d"h v'im mashkein. Biur HaGra os 23. However, note the responsum of the Rashba (vol. 3 siman 255) brought in the Beis Yosef at the end of the siman, who wrote in the view of the Rambam that it is mid'oraisa; and they already objected to him from what he himself wrote in his chiddushim (Avodah Zarah 75b, d"h Gemara) and in Toras HaBayis (bayis 4 sha'ar 4, 35a), that in the view of the Rambam it is d'rabbanan; and see the sefer Tevilas Keilim p. 32 and the references there. And in Divrei Shaul on YD there (brought in Likkutei Sichos vol. 18 p. 367 note 37) he wrote in the view of the Rambam that a vessel which non-Jews actually used - the obligation of tevilah is mid'oraisa on account of the gi'ulei akum that were in it, and this is the completion and conclusion of its taharah. However new vessels that were merely in the possession of a non-Jew - the obligation of tevilah is mid'rabbanan on account of the laws of tumah and taharah ↩
8 See the references in Tevilas Keilim pp. 32-33 ↩
9 However, from his chiddushim it appears that he held that it is d'oraisa, as the Rashba wrote in his name. And see Tevilas Keilim p. 34 ↩
10 Siman 120 se'if 14 ↩
11 s"k 16 ↩
12 Os 24 ↩
13 Os 23 ↩
14 OC siman 323 se'if 8 ↩
15 And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 18 p. 366 note 30, which also references OC siman 159 se'if 21 ↩
16 Avodah Zarah ch. 5 halacha 15 ↩
17 s"k 1. And see what is written in Tevilas Keilim pp. 42-43 note 8 ↩
18 Avodah Zarah 75b ↩
19 And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 18 p. 368 note 42 ↩
20 Sha'ar 58 siman 106 ↩
[2] (Halacha 176)
Question: Are all vessels obligated in tevilah, or does it depend on the material from which the vessel is made?
Answer: It is stated in the Torah in parshas Matos regarding the vessels that require tevilah1: 'אַ֥ךְ אֶת־הַזָּהָ֖ב וְאֶת־הַכָּ֑סֶף אֶֽת־הַנְּחֹ֙שֶׁת֙ אֶת־הַבַּרְזֶ֔ל אֶֽת־הַבְּדִ֖יל וְאֶת־הָעֹפָֽרֶת:' In this list there are only vessels made of metal, and as the Gemara says in Maseches Avodah Zarah2: 'A certain one of the Rabbanan, and Rabbi Yaakov was his name, said to him: to me it was explained from Rabbi Yochanan: metal vessels are the ones spoken of in the parshah. Rav Ashi said: these glass vessels, since when they break they can be repaired, are considered like metal vessels'. And Rashi explained that if they break they are fit to be melted down and made into vessels - that is, there is a possibility of recycling them.
The Gemara continues and says: 'Konya (an earthenware vessel coated with the metal lead) - Rav Acha and Ravina differ regarding it: one says like its beginning (that it is earthenware), and one says like its end (that he coated it with metal, and therefore it is considered a metal vessel that is obligated). And the halacha is: like its end'.
We see from the words of the Gemara that only vessels of metal or of glass are obligated in tevilah, and not other vessels such as earthenware and the like, unless they have upon them a coating of metal or glass, in which case they are obligated in tevilah on account of the coating (and with Hashem's help we will write in a separate halacha the laws of coated vessels).
And so wrote the Rambam3: 'And likewise if he took a wooden vessel or a stone vessel .. he need not immerse it; and likewise an earthenware vessel he need not immerse; but those glazed with lead (-coated with lead) are like metal vessels and require tevilah'.
And this is the language of the Issur V'Heter HaAroch4: 'But those of wood and stone and earthenware that are not coated are not immersed at all, for Rabbi Yochanan said: metal vessels are the ones spoken of in the parshah'.
And note what the Issur V'Heter wrote further on there5 regarding the kinds of vessels that need not be immersed: '..and even to immerse them without a bracha is not necessary. And it is better not to immerse them, lest one come to recite a bracha over them, and it would be like a bracha levatalah'.
If so, the obligation of tevilah is specifically in metal vessels and in glass vessels which are similar to metal vessels, and not in earthenware vessels.
★★★
Question: Is there a difference in the obligation between a metal vessel and a glass vessel?
Answer: The Sefer HaEshkol6 wrote: 'Even though the pasuk requires tevilah only for seudah vessels of metal, glass vessels, which can be repaired by melting like metals, require tevilah; and it appears to us that mid'rabbanan they require tevilah'.
And so wrote Rabbeinu Tam in Sefer HaYashar7: 'There he said it as a stringency, that they decreed upon them to be like earthenware vessels, and they have no remedy through tevilah but only through breaking, since they are similar to earthenware vessels; and here too the Rabbanan made them like metal vessels, since they resemble one another, and they require tevilah'.
And so wrote the Pri Chodosh8: 'And it stands to reason that even according to what I will write further on [s"k 6], that this tevilah is from the Torah, it is only specifically with metal vessels which are written in the parshah, but not with glass vessels, for it is only mid'rabbanan that they required tevilah for them because they resemble metal vessels; and so is proven in the first perek of Shabbos [16a]'.
And indeed the Maamar Mordechai9 wrote: 'We have not found a distinction between metal vessels and glass vessels in this matter; and see YD at the end of siman 120 and you will find a machlokes of the poskim regarding this tevilah, whether it is d'oraisa or d'rabbanan; but it appears simple that whoever holds that it is mid'rabbanan holds so even with metal vessels'.
But according to the view of most of the poskim10 the intention of the Gemara is that a glass vessel is like a metal vessel only with regard to the very obligation of tevilah, but with regard to the level of the obligation, their obligation is mid'rabbanan and not mid'oraisa.
★★★
Question: Does one recite a bracha when immersing glass vessels?
Answer: The Meiri in Avodah Zarah there wrote: 'And even regarding this there are those who cast doubt about them concerning this tevilah, and they immerse without a bracha; but it does not appear so to me, since it was stated in its place that it is a halacha'. And in Shu"t HaRashbash11 he wrote: 'Regarding glass vessels, that you said that in your place they immerse them without a bracha - this is very astonishing to me, for in the Gemara it was stated explicitly that glass vessels are considered like metal vessels'. And so wrote the Issur V'Heter12 HaAroch: 'And glass vessels themselves - one recites a bracha upon their tevilah'.
And the Pri Chodosh13 explained: 'Even though glass vessels are obligated in tevilah only mid'rabbanan, as I wrote in s"k 3, nevertheless we also recite a bracha over mitzvos d'rabbanan, and it is fitting to say v'tzivanu'.
If so, upon the tevilah of glass vessels too one must recite a bracha.
Notes:
1 Klal 58 s"k 17 ↩
2 Shu"t vol. 4 siman 114 ↩
3 See also Shevet HaLevi vol. 4 siman 91 ↩
4 Kuntres Yevakesh Daas os 44, printed at the beginning of Seder Taharos ↩
5 YD vol. 3 siman 22 ↩
6 Vol. 3 siman 70 ↩
7 His words are said specifically regarding aluminium, whereas a stainless steel vessel is seemingly the case discussed above, that most of it is iron, and then according to all opinions it becomes obligated in tevilah ↩
8 Note that these novel points, that glass is included among metal vessels, and the inference from the words of Rashi, are already explained in the glosses of the Rashash on Rashi there; and on this basis he explained the words of the Mordechai (Avodah Zarah siman 859) who wrote regarding the nusach of the bracha 'that some recite - al tevilas kli mateches - so that it should not imply other vessels that are not metal'; and see at length the journal Kol HaTorah 12 p. 98 for further proofs and wondrous matters that emerge from this ↩
9 Apart from the responsa brought in the body, see also Aruch HaShulchan siman 120 se'if 23. Kovetz MiBeis Levi, inyonei YD p. 140. Sefer Tevilas Keilim (Cohen) ch. 11 os 142 ↩
10 They are referenced in the sefer Tevilas Keilim pp. 40-41 ↩
11 End of siman 468 ↩
12 Sha'ar 58 siman 82 ↩
13 YD siman 120 ↩
[4] (Halacha 178)
Tevilas keilim on Shabbos (1)
Question: Is it permitted to immerse vessels on Shabbos?
Answer: Regarding tamei vessels the Gemara in Maseches Beitzah says1: 'In any event all agree that a vessel may not be immersed on Shabbos. What is the reason? - Rabbah said: lest he take it in his hand and carry it four amos in the reshus harabbim. .. Rav Yosef said: it is a decree on account of wringing out. .. Rav Bibi said: it is a decree lest he delay [lest he delay immersing his vessels until Yom Tov, and in the meantime he come to a mishap and use terumah with them] .. Rava said: because he appears like one who repairs a vessel'.
And the Rosh wrote that the prohibition of immersing new vessels on Shabbos depends on the views of the Amoraim as to the reason for the prohibition of immersing tamei vessels: for according to Rabbah, that the prohibition is lest he carry four amos in the reshus harabbim, and likewise according to Rava, that the prohibition is because he appears like one who repairs a vessel, it would also be forbidden to immerse new vessels2.
The Rif brought only the reason of Rav Yosef and Rav Bibi, and omitted the reason of Rabbah and Rava. And the Beis Yosef wrote on this3: 'As to halacha, since according to the Rif and the Rambam4 it is implied that it is permitted to immerse new vessels on Yom Tov, this is what we adopt; however, since it is possible by means of the remedy that the Mordechai wrote, which I will write shortly, it is correct to be concerned for the words of the one who forbids, and to permit only by means of that remedy where it is possible'.
And he wrote in the Darkei Moshe there: 'And it appears to me that by law it is forbidden, for one must be concerned for the words of the Acharonim, the Rosh and the Rashba and the Mordechai .. and therefore it is forbidden to immerse vessels on Shabbos and Yom Tov:'
And so wrote the Mechaber in the Shulchan Aruch5: 'It is permitted to immerse a new vessel that requires tevilah; and there are those who forbid, and a yerei Shomayim will fulfil them all: he should give the vessel to a non-Jew as a gift and then borrow it back from him, and it requires no tevilah. And the Rema added: And if it is a vessel fit to be filled with water, he should fill it with water from the mikveh and it counts for it as a tevilah'.
And the Taz wrote6 that the reason the Mechaber took as the essential view that it is permitted to immerse on Shabbos follows his view in the Rambam that the tevilah of new vessels is mid'rabbanan. And according to his words it emerges that since we rule that tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa, it is certainly forbidden to immerse a metal vessel on Shabbos7. And some have written8 that indeed the Mechaber too, in YD 120 se'if 16, retracted and held that the essential view is like the poskim who forbid immersing on Shabbos.
And as to halacha the Alter Rebbe wrote9: 'It is permitted to immerse a new vessel on Shabbos, even if it was possible to immerse it on erev Shabbos, and he is not considered like one who repairs a vessel, since from the Torah it is permitted to use it without tevilah, and its obligation of tevilah is only midivrei sofrim. And there are those who say that even so he is considered like one who repairs, and it is forbidden even if it was not possible to immerse it on erev Shabbos .. and it goes without saying according to the words of those who say that tevilas keilim is from the Torah, as is written in YD siman 120, that this is an important repair according to all opinions, and the Chachomim forbade it because it resembles one who actually repairs a vessel, which is an av melacha, as is explained in siman 302 .. and if these remedies [brought above in the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema] are not possible, he should not immerse, for the essential view is like the words of those who say that tevilas keilim is from the Torah, as is written in YD there.
If so, it is forbidden to immerse vessels on Shabbos,
The solutions for a person who did not immerse a vessel and needs it on Shabbos, we will learn about them next week
Notes:
1 17b ↩
2 But see the Taz siman 323 s"k 5, who wrote: 'And I was astonished at the holy mouth of the Rosh in this', and wrote that the tevilah of new vessels does not necessarily depend on these reasons ↩
3 Siman 323 ↩
4 The Beis Yosef wrote that the Rambam in Hilchos Yom Tov brought only the reason of Rav Bibi; and the Maharsha"l objected to the Beis Yosef that in Hilchos Shabbos the Rambam wrote, regarding tamei vessels, the reason of Rava. The Taz answered that the Beis Yosef held that the Rambam forbade specifically with tamei vessels, which is a din d'oraisa, whereas tevilas keilim, which according to the view of the Rambam is d'rabbanan, is therefore permitted ↩
5 OC siman 323 se'if 7 ↩
6 S"k 5 ↩
7 And see Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 5, and the words of the Alter Rebbe below ↩
8 Chochmas Adam klal 73 se'if 23, Zivchei Tzedek YD siman 120 os 89, Aruch HaShulchan YD 120 end of se'if 1, Darkei Teshuvah YD siman 120 s"k 107 ↩
9 Siman 323 se'if 8 ↩
[5] (Halacha 179)
Question: We saw in the Gemara that although the Torah obligated tevilah for metal vessels, nevertheless Chazal said regarding glass vessels, 'since when they break they can be repaired, they are considered like metal vessels' - do plastic vessels too, which can be melted down and made anew, have the same din as glass vessels?
Answer: The Darkei Teshuvah1 brought Shu"t Ohel Avraham2 (שאג) siman 24, who wrote that any vessel of bone that can be melted down and repaired is obligated in tevilah.
However, in Shu"t Chelkas Yaakov3 he wrote regarding plastic vessels: 'that even these vessels can be repaired by means of melting alone, just like all metals as well, we have no right on our own to obligate them in tevilah, and it would come to a bracha levatalah .. and here too, since in their days these kinds of vessels did not exist and they were not obligated in tevilah, it is not in our hands to obligate them in tevilah .. in any event, in my humble opinion they should not be immersed even without a bracha - but one who wishes to be stringent and immerse them is not to be rebuffed; so it appears to me in this ruling - if the other rabbanim will also agree, for this is a general question that concerns the whole world, and it is not for a single rav to rule on it'.
And in Shu"t Yabia Omer4 he wrote: 'And now the din reverts, that even nowadays bone vessels do not require tevilah, even though it is possible to melt them down. And so I saw in Shu"t Melamed L'Hoil (YD siman 49), who brought in the name of the aforementioned Ohel Avraham that one should immerse bone vessels acquired from akum; and he wrote that there is room to reason that since glass vessels are only by force of a decree of Chazal, perhaps they decreed only upon glass vessels, and not upon other vessels, even though it is possible to melt them down. Thus far his words. And now we too shall say that plastic and nylon vessels do not require tevilah, even though it is possible to melt them down and restore them, since Chazal did not decree upon them … I shall put an end to my words, for one who buys nylon vessels and plastic vessels from a non-Jew need not immerse them, even without a bracha. And one who is stringent upon himself to immerse them without a bracha - may the bracha of good come upon him'.
And the Shu"t Tzitz Eliezer5 added in explanation: 'And in general, in my humble opinion it appears that even when there will now be found other vessels, besides glass vessels, that are made and arranged in such a way that they can be repaired when they break, nevertheless we cannot innovate decrees of our own to come and liken them to glass vessels and to require tevilah for them; for we have no right to expound in this the reason of the pasuk and of Chazal, and we have only what Chazal themselves decreed and added to metal vessels, namely glass vessels alone, as is explained in Avodah Zarah there'. And he further wrote there: 'With plastic vessels, which as stated lack the essential and fundamental resemblance to metal vessels and are made of entirely different materials, in such a case even the Aruch HaShulchan would agree that there is no room to liken them to metal vessels merely because they take off one form and put on another, and they do not require tevilah'.
But in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak6 he wrote: 'And I wrote to immerse them without a bracha, for the reason that the poskim wrote, that if it can be repaired by melting in fire, it is like a glass vessel and requires tevilah; but in any event one should not recite a bracha, for the reason that his honour wrote in the name of the Melamed L'Hoil, that it may be said that since Chazal decreed only upon glass vessels, the decree did not take effect upon other things'.
We thus find that the Acharonim differ as to whether plastic vessels should be immersed on account of their resemblance to glass vessels, which are obligated mid'rabbanan.
But in practice the poskim wrote7 that the widespread minhag is not to immerse plastic vessels; and so ruled Harav M. S. Ashkenazi z"l, that there is no need to immerse plastic vessels8.
Notes:
1 Siman 120 s"k 14 ↩
2 (שאג) siman 24 ↩
3 YD siman 45 ↩
4 Vol. 4 YD siman 8 ↩
5 Vol. 7 siman 37 ↩
6 Vol. 3 siman 76 ↩
7 Kovetz MiBeis HaLevi, Nissan 5756, p. 13. And see the references in Piskei U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 5 note 50 ↩
8 And note that regarding the difference between aluminium vessels, concerning which it was ruled that they are obligated in tevilah, and plastic vessels, which are not obligated, some have noted that it indeed requires study from where the distinction between them derives, for after all both are new vessels that did not exist at the time of the decree concerning glass vessels (see Kovetz Nezer HaTorah 6). However, according to the words of the aforementioned Tzitz Eliezer the matter is resolved, since the exemption of plastic is not only because it was not included in the decree of the Chachomim upon glass, but also because it is manufactured from a material entirely different from the other metals, as opposed to aluminium, which resembles the other metals ↩
[6] (Halacha 180)
Question: What is the din of a disposable vessel, such as a disposable metal baking pan - is it obligated in tevilah?
Answer: In Shu"t Mishneh Halachos1 he wrote: 'In my humble opinion they are obligated in tevilah; and although I have heard that some are lenient in this, in any event in my humble opinion, since it is a kind of metal and is also fit to be used more than once, it is simple that regarding netilas yadayim it has the din of a vessel, that one may wash his hands with it; and since it is metal, in my humble opinion it is obligated in tevilah'.
But most of the Acharonim disagreed with him, as follows: In Shu"t Chelkas Yaakov2 he wrote: '..in truth, it appears to me that they do not require tevilah, since the use of these bowls is only temporary, and they are thrown away immediately after their use, and they are not mekabel tumah, as is explained in the Rambam Hilchos Keilim ch. 5 halacha 7 ..we thus find it explained from the language of the Rambam and the Tosefta that the matter depends on his intention: that if it is his intention to throw it away immediately after the use, it is called a temporary use and it is not mekabel tumah. And if so, according to the ruling of the responsum of the Shav Yaakov siman 31 .. the essential point is the first reason, and the minhag of Yisroel is Torah, that something which is not mekabel tumah does not require tevilah, and this also avails for this tumah of [passing] from the domain of an akum to the domain of a Yisroel'. And so too he wrote in Shu"t Igros Moshe3.
And in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak4 he wrote that even according to the views that do not liken non-susceptibility to tumah to an exemption from tevilah, there is nevertheless a side for leniency regarding the tevilah of a disposable vessel. And he wrote: 'I found in that responsum of the Gidulei Taharah (siman 17), in what he wrote regarding cauldrons in which spirits are cooked, that they are lenient to use them without tevilah ... for it is possible, according to what the craftsmen say, that if the spirits are left in these vessels they become spoiled - if so, it is not a vessel for use … if so, all the more so in our case, where not only is the food not left in it, but they even bake in it only once (as opposed to the case of the Gidulei Taharah, which is meant to endure at least to cook in it several times), and also they are not even mekabel tumah, so that it is possible to combine also the view of the Shav Yaakov - it is obvious that it may be said that it does not require tevilah, even l'chatchilah; and all the more so since they have already conducted themselves so, and such is the practice of the people, not to immerse'
And in the sefer Tevilas Keilim of Harav Tzvi HaKohen5 he brought from Harav Blut a further reasoning to exempt from tevilah: that with a disposable vessel the vessel is batel to the food.
In practice most of the poskim wrote that a disposable vessel does not require tevilah6.
And it is important to clarify! As is written in Shu"t Kinyan Torah7: 'And with all this it should be noted that one must not learn from this any leniency, common in the mouths of the masses, that one time it is permitted to use a vessel (that is not disposable) without tevilah, for this has no source whatsoever'. (And we will explain this in tomorrow's halacha, with Hashem's help).
★★★
Question: A disposable vessel that one wishes to use several times - does it become obligated in tevilah?
Answer: In Shu"t Kinyan Torah there he wrote regarding a disposable vessel: 'Even if there be found a miser who wants to gain from this vessel one more time or twice, with all this it does not require tevilah, and his view is nullified beside that of every other person, and it is not called by this a vessel for use - except where he designates it for a long time8.
But there are many poskim9 who wrote that when a person regularly does, and plans to, use the disposable pan more than once, it already has the name of a vessel upon it, and he must immerse it (without a bracha) even before the first use.
And some have written10 that this is specifically when his intention was from the outset for use several times; but if that was not his intention, and only when he saw that after the first use it remained fit for a further use he wishes to use it again - in such a case it does not require tevilah.
In practice, a disposable aluminium vessel, if it is designated from the outset for use several times, it is fitting to immerse it without a bracha before beginning to use it.
Notes:
1 Vol. 7 siman 111 ↩
2 YD siman 46 ↩
3 YD vol. 3 siman 23 ↩
4 Vol. 5 siman 32 ↩
5 Ch. 1 os 7 note 10 p. 58 ↩
6 And note what was brought in the previous halacha, that the view of many poskim is that aluminium vessels in general are obligated only mid'rabbanan ↩
7 Vol. 1 siman 51 ↩
8 See also the sefer Tevilas Keilim p. 57. And in the aforementioned Shu"t Igros Moshe. And see also Shu"t Chashev HaEifod vol. 3 siman 70 ↩
9 See Kovetz MiBeis Levi 9, Nissan 5756, p. 13. And see also the references in Piskei U'Teshuvos siman 120 note 242 ↩
10 See Shu"t Machazeh Eliyahu vol. 2 siman 50 os 12 ↩
[7] (Halacha 181)
Question: Which type of vessels require tevilah?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zarah1 says: 'Rav Sheishes objected to this: if so, even a zuza d'sarbela as well? (that is, would shears with which one shears woollen garments also be obligated in tevilah) the Gemara answers) 'He said to him: vessels of a seudah are the ones spoken of in the parsha'. And Rashi explained: 'for it is written כל דבר אשר יבא באש, and it is not the way to use fire except with vessels for the needs of a seudah, and regarding those it is written וטהר — tevilah; but a zuza d'sarbela, no'.
Further on, the Gemara brings a beraisa that enumerates among the things that require tevilah: 'such as the cauldrons, the kettles and the water-heaters'. That is, included among seudah vessels are not only the seudah vessels themselves but also the vessels in which the food is prepared, and they too require tevilah.
And the Mechaber wrote2: 'One who buys seudah vessels from an idolater'. And the Levush explained3: 'that only vessels for the needs of a seudah require tevilah, such as cups and bowls, cauldrons and kettles and the like, which are among the needs of a seudah'.
We thus find that only seudah vessels, including the vessels used for the needs of the seudah, are obligated in tevilah.
★★★
Question: A food-storage vessel, such as a thermos in which one puts hot water but from which one pours into a cup, and which is not brought to the table — is it obligated in tevilah?
Answer: It is written in Sefer Issur V'Heter HaAruch4: 'And for this reason one must also immerse iron spigots, even though he will never bend down and drink from them. And likewise the large vessels of metals in which wine is kept, in the vernacular shtand"a, even though one does not drink from them at all'.
But in the Knesses HaGedolah5 he wrote in the name of the perfect sage, the Mahar"i of Mliria: 'It appears that they do not require tevilah, for only seudah vessels require tevilah, and these barrels are not customarily used by means of fire, but only to place wine into them for keeping. And he wrote that so he argued before his teacher the Rav, and his words appeared correct to him, and the minhag supports him, for we have not seen anyone who required tevilah for them'. It appears from his words that such storage vessels are not obligated in tevilah.
And the poskim wrote6 that the tevilah of a thermos which is not used at the table and the like depends on these two opinions, and therefore one should immerse them without a bracha.
★★★
Question: A tin-can opener and a wine opener, and a stand upon which pots are placed — are they obligated in tevilah?
Answer: The Mechaber wrote7: 'Trifid"sh (-a tripod) upon which one sets pots do not require tevilah. But pediliya"sh do require tevilah, because one places the food itself upon them'.
And the Aruch HaShulchan derived this8: 'The explanation of the matter is that seudah vessels are only that which comes into contact with the food itself, and not with the vessel in which the food is; and therefore the trifidi"sh upon which one stands the pot does not require tevilah, and in our language it is called dreifu"s. But the briliya"sh upon which one roasts the food itself does require tevilah. And from this we have learned that all bases of vessels, such as the base upon which one stands the muliar and all similar to it, do not require tevilah.
And on this basis the poskim wrote9 regarding a wine opener and the like, that since it is neither a seudah vessel nor a vessel for preparing the seudah, but rather serves as a vessel for the seudah vessel, it is exempt from tevilah.
Notes:
1 75b ↩
2 YD siman 120 se'if 1 ↩
3 Se'if 3 ↩
4 Sha'ar 58 siman 88. And so wrote several of the Acharonim, referenced in Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 18 note 173 ↩
5 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD siman 120 s"k 18. And see the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos there, note 174 ↩
6 See Kitzur Shulchan Aruch siman 37 halacha 8, and Misgeres HaShulchan there s"k 6, and Darkei Teshuvah s"k 6 and s"k 15 ↩
7 In YD siman 120 se'if 4, from the Hagahos Smak siman 199 hagahah 1 ↩
8 YD siman 120 se'if 32 ↩
9 See Sefer Tevilas Keilim (Cohen) ch. 11 os 171 and note 133. And see also Kashrus HaMachalim p. 176, which explains that so it is also according to the words of the Mahari"l brought in the Shach s"k 11 ↩
[8] (Halacha 182)
Question: We learned that one must immerse vessels, and for metal vessels this obligation is from the Torah. As long as the vessel has not been immersed, is it forbidden to use it, or is it indeed obligated in tevilah but when one is unable to immerse it, it is permitted to use it?
Answer: The Ravyah wrote1 regarding the Gemara which was in doubt whether there is an obligation of tevilah for a vessel taken as a pledge and left the matter as teiku: 'And it appears to me that this is not like a teiku concerning a prohibition, for there is no prohibition here; and it is also not comparable to other mitzvos, which are an obligation upon him, for if he wishes he can exempt himself and drink from another cup. Therefore it does not require tevilah, and we do not say that he should immerse them out of doubt without a bracha'.
And the Avnei Nezer wrote2: '.. since there is no prohibition to wear a garment without tzitzis, only a mitzvah. And when one is unable to perform the mitzvah, the wearing is not thereby forbidden. And according to this, in tevilas keilim too, when one is unable to immerse, it is permitted to use it without tevilah'.
[And note the words of the Piskei Rid3: 'Not that the tevilah is indispensable, such that he may not use it until he immerses it, for it is only a mitzvah mid'rabanan, and it is not to remove the vessel from its prohibition' (though he follows his own view that the entire obligation is mid'rabanan, unlike the Ravyah, who held that the very obligation of tevilah is mid'oraisa)].
However, many Rishonim4 disagreed with this view and held that there is a prohibition of use before the tevilah. And these are the words of the Rokeach5: 'It is forbidden to use them until he first immerses'. And the Rambam6 wrote: 'He immerses them in the water of a mikveh, and afterwards they are permitted to eat and to drink with them'.
And so it appears from the words of the Shulchan Aruch7, and so it is explicit in the Rema8, who wrote that it is forbidden to use it.
However, regarding the very prohibition of use as well, the poskim differ as to whether it is mid'rabanan or mid'oraisa: some wrote9 that it is mid'rabanan and does not stem from the obligation of tevilah.
And some wrote10 that the prohibition of use is from the Torah. And on this basis the Pri Megadim wrote11 that it may be said that a person who on leil haSeder has no immersed cup may not use a metal cup, even if on account of this he will be prevented from drinking the four cups. And so it is implied by the words of the Alter Rebbe12, who wrote that according to those who say that tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa the tevilah is 'an important tikkun' — implying that the prohibition of use is mid'oraisa, and therefore the tevilah is an important tikkun.
In practice it is forbidden to use a vessel without tevilah, and some say that this is a prohibition mid'oraisa, and it appears that such is also the opinion of the Alter Rebbe.
★★★
Question: Is there any halachic basis for what is commonly assumed, that one may use a vessel once without tevilah?
Answer: The Radbaz wrote13: 'You asked of me concerning new metal vessels acquired from non-Jews, whether it is permitted to use one of them merely incidentally without tevilah, such as to drink water from a new glass vessel. Answer: It appears to me that a vessel made for that very use, such as a cup to drink from or a knife to cut with, it is forbidden to use even incidentally, for Chazal did not distinguish14, and the reason is because they have gone out from the tumah of non-Jews to the taharah of Yisroel, and what difference is there to me between incidental use and regular use? But to use the vessel not in its usual manner of use, such as to place coins in it, or a pot to sit upon, is permitted, even if he designated them for that; for they said only seudah vessels, that is, that one uses them for the needs of a seudah, but if one uses them in another manner it is permitted. And what appears to my humble opinion I have written'.
And so wrote the Rema there, that it is forbidden to use it even in a temporary manner.
In practice there is no heter whatsoever to use an unimmersed vessel, even once.
Notes:
1 Pesachim siman 464. Brought in Hagahos Maimoniyos, Hilchos Ma'achalos Assuros ch. 17, 8 ↩
2 Shu"t OC siman 418 ↩
3 Avodah Zarah 75b ↩
4 Referenced in Tevilas Keilim ch. 4 note 2, p. 102 ↩
5 Hilchos Issur V'Heter siman 481 ↩
6 Hilchos Ma'achalos Assuros ch. 17 halacha 3 ↩
7 Se'if 16. And seemingly also from se'if 9 ↩
8 Se'if 8 ↩
9 Referenced in Tevilas Keilim there. In Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 note 14. And see Shulchan Shlomo vol. 2 siman 68:2, that this is said when he is unable to immerse; but even according to this view, when one uses the vessel at a time when he is able to immerse it, he transgresses a mitzvah mid'oraisa ↩
10 Or Zarua, Avodah Zarah siman 293. And note also Shu"t Mahara"ch Or Zarua siman 63 ↩
11 OC siman 486, in the Mishbetzos Zahav ↩
12 Siman 323 se'if 8 ↩
13 Shu"t from manuscript, OC, YD (vol. 8) siman 106 ↩
14 From his wording it appears that the prohibition of using it is mid'rabanan, and even so they forbade it even in a temporary manner; and if so, all the more so according to the views that the prohibition is mid'oraisa ↩
[9] (Halacha 183)
Question: When one buys a new vessel, must he immerse it immediately, or may he leave it at home and immerse it only later, before using it?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Beitzah1 says that one of the reasons for the prohibition of immersing a tamei vessel on Shabbos is: 'Rav Bibi said: it is a decree lest he delay'. And Rashi explained that one may not leave tamei vessels in the house without tevilah, out of concern that he will come 'to a mishap, to use terumah with them'.
And the Maharsha"l wrote2: 'And according to Rav Bibi too it is forbidden, even new vessels3 … lest he delay, and come to a mishap, to use them', and his words were brought by the Eliyah Rabbah4 and the Pri Megadim5.
However, the Levush6 and other Acharonim7 wrote that in practice there is no prohibition at all in leaving a vessel that has not been immersed, [and there are Acharonim who wrote that even though there is no prohibition to leave it, nevertheless one should not leave it more than 21 days without tevilah8].
In practice, in our times, when forgetfulness is common and vessels get confused with one another, it is proper to be stringent and not to leave unimmersed vessels in the house9 where they may be used by mistake without tevilah, unless the vessel is packaged or has a visible sticker on it that will serve as a sign that it has not been immersed, in which case there is no concern10.
★ ★ ★
Question: When food was placed or cooked in a pot that was not immersed — what is the din of the food?
Answer: The Or Zarua wrote11: 'And I do not know the din of new vessels which a non-Jew has not used, and a Jew bought them from him and did not immerse them and used them b'dieved. And I do not know whether it is permitted or forbidden .. Or likewise old vessels which were used and he performed hagalah or libun upon them, so that they have now expelled all the issur that was in them and are considered like new ones, and even so they require tevilah. This is nothing but a gezeiras hakasuv, that the Torah forbade using them without tevilah. That being so, on what account shall we permit it b'dieved, and upon what shall we rely to permit them?'.
But the Ramban12 wrote: 'And if he cooked before he immersed, it is permitted according to all opinions', and so many Rishonim ruled13. And so wrote the Tur14: 'Even though one must immerse the vessel before he uses it, if he used it beforehand, that which he used it for is not forbidden'
And so ruled the Rema15: 'And if he transgressed and used the vessel without tevilah, that which he used it for is not forbidden'.
Notes:
1 18a ↩
2 Yam Shel Shlomo, Beitzah ch. 2 siman 19 ↩
3 The Rosh wrote (Beitzah ch. 2 siman 12) that they did not decree the prohibition of tevilah on Shabbos on account of the concern lest he delay in the case of a new vessel. (And so it appears to be the opinion of the Beis Yosef in siman 323.) But in the words of the Rosh there are several approaches among the Acharonim as to how to explain them, and according to some of the explanations the reason they did not decree lest he delay is because there is indeed no prohibition to delay. But seemingly there is no proof for this in the words of the Rosh. (And see Pesakim U'Teshuvos, Miluim 120 os 3) ↩
4 OC siman 323 os 12 ↩
5 Siman 323, in the Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 5 ↩
6 OC siman 323 se'if 7, as explained in the Pri Megadim there ↩
7 See Tevilas Keilim ch. 4 note 1 ↩
8 Beis Efraim OC siman 52 ↩
9 Especially according to what was explained in the previous halacha, that seemingly according to the opinion of the Alter Rebbe the prohibition of use is mid'oraisa ↩
10 Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 3 ↩
11 Piskei Avodah Zarah siman 293 ↩
12 Avodah Zarah 75b ↩
13 See the references in Tevilas Keilim ch. 4 note 10 ↩
14 End of siman 120 ↩
15 Siman 120 se'if 16 ↩
[10] (Halacha 184)
Tevilas keilim on Shabbos (2)
Question: When a person did not immerse the vessel before Shabbos, and he needs to use the vessel on Shabbos, what solutions may be employed?
Answer: The poskim bring two possibilities where a person has a need to use an unimmersed vessel on Shabbos. In this halacha we will discuss the first solution [and the second solution we will learn be'ezras Hashem next week]:
The Gemara in Maseches Avodah Zarah1 says: 'Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: they taught this only regarding vessels purchased, and as in the incident that occurred, but not regarding borrowed vessels'. It emerges from the words of the Gemara that there is no prohibition of use with an unimmersed vessel belonging to a non-Jew where the Jew is only borrowing it from him.
And the Mordechai wrote2: 'One who forgot and did not immerse a vessel before Shabbos or before Yom Tov should give the vessel to an idolater as a gift and then borrow it back from him, and he is then like one who borrows from an idolater, of whom it is said in the fifth chapter of Maseches Avodah Zarah that it does not require tevilah'.
And so the Mechaber ruled3: 'If he forgot and did not immerse a vessel before Shabbos or before Yom Tov, he should give it to an idolater as a gift and afterwards borrow it from him, and it is permitted to use it. And the Rema wrote in his gloss: 'And so he should do even during the week, in a place where he has no mikveh'.
And the Taz wrote4: 'It appears to me that this remedy is only for the moment, that is, for that Shabbos, or during the week for as long as he has no mikveh; but after Shabbos, or when a mikveh becomes available to him, since it will remain permanently in the hand of a Jew it is certainly like a purchased vessel in his hand, and it is no better than the pledge of an idolater in the hand of a Jew where his intention is that it remain with him, which requires tevilah. And furthermore, regarding a borrowed tallis we likewise find that it is exempt from tzitzis for all of thirty days, and afterwards it is obligated, since it appears as his own. Therefore here too it appears that it requires tevilah once it is possible for him to immerse it, even with a bracha. But since this is not explicit in the poskim, one should be careful to immerse another vessel together with it, on account of the concern of a doubtful bracha'.
And indeed there are Acharonim who disagreed with the Taz, for the Knesses HaGedolah5 wrote: 'And to me it appears that the opinion of the Mordechai is that it does not require tevilah, for as long as it is in his hand it is borrowed by him, and one who borrows or rents from a non-Jew does not require tevilah. However, to immerse them together with other vessels there is no concern, and since it is good, do not call it bad'.
And on the other hand the Pri Chodosh6 wrote: 'And if it afterwards remains permanently in his hand, he should immerse it with a bracha. And not like the Taz, who is stringent to immerse another vessel together with it'.
But in practice the Alter Rebbe7 ruled like the Taz and wrote: 'And one who fears Heaven will satisfy them all: he should give the vessel to a non-Jew as a gift and then borrow it back from him, and then no tevilah is required at all, for it is permitted to give a gift on Shabbos when it is for the need of Shabbos, as is written in siman 306. And nevertheless, after Shabbos he must immerse it without a bracha, as was explained in Yoreh Deah there'.
And the Gaon Rav Chaim Naeh wrote8: that according to the words of the Taz it is proper to be mehader and immerse this vessel together with another new vessel, and thus the bracha will apply to this vessel as well. Or alternatively, in a case where he has no other new vessel, if it is possible for him to ask the non-Jew after Shabbos to give him the vessel as an outright gift, or he may buy it from him for a few perutos, and then he will be able to immerse it with a bracha.
If so, in practice, when one forgot to immerse a vessel before Shabbos and he needs the vessel, he may transfer ownership of the vessel to a non-Jew and borrow it from him and use it on Shabbos, and after Shabbos he should immerse the vessel without a bracha — unless he has another new vessel, or the non-Jew transfers it back to him after Shabbos, in which case he immerses it with a bracha
★★★
Question: How is the transfer of ownership to the non-Jew effected on Shabbos?
Answer: The best way is to give the vessel to the non-Jew so that he acquires it by hagbahah, or by meshichah for something that he cannot lift, and afterwards the non-Jew gives it to the Jew as a loan9.
Notes:
1 75b ↩
2 Beitzah ch. 2 siman 677 ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 120 se'if 16. And see also OC siman 323 se'if 7 ↩
4 YD siman 120 s"k 18 ↩
5 Hagahos Beis Yosef, YD siman 120 os 62 ↩
6 YD siman 120 s"k 42. And so wrote the Maamar Mordechai in OC siman 323, and the Chasam Sofer YD siman 120 s"k 6 ↩
7 OC siman 323 se'if 8 ↩
8 Ketzos HaShulchan siman 146 din 3, in the Badei HaShulchan os 6 ↩
9 See the references in Tevilas Keilim p. 130 note 2 ↩
[11] (Halacha 185)
Question: A seudah vessel that is used for other purposes unrelated to a seudah, such as a kitchen knife used only for cutting modelling clay and the like — is it obligated in tevilah?
Answer: It is written in the Issur V'Heter HaAruch1 (Sha'ar 58 siman 83): 'But if he bought a knife that was prepared for a seudah, and even if he bought it for the need of the seudah and then changed his mind about it, to cut parchments with it and the like, it does not require tevilah'.
In the Shulchan Aruch the Rema wrote2, YD siman 120 se'if 8: 'It is forbidden to use it for the needs of a seudah, even on a temporary basis, without tevilah, even though he bought it for the need of parchments'. And the Shach wrote3: 'But not for the needs of a seudah, it is permitted to use it. And even though it was prepared for the need of a seudah, [yet] when he changed his mind about it, to cut parchments with it, it does not require tevilah — so wrote the Issur V'Heter there, din 83'.
If so, when a person designates a vessel for a use that is not that of a seudah vessel, and that is its entire use, it does not require tevilah; but he must make sure that they do not come to use this vessel for the needs of a seudah.
★★★
Question: If one wishes to use this vessel for the need of a seudah on a one-time basis, is it permitted?
Answer: The Rema wrote above that for the need of a seudah it is forbidden to use such a vessel even in a temporary manner. But the Pri Chodosh4 disagreed with these words of the Rema and wrote: 'That which the gloss wrote, "even on a temporary basis", is not so'. And this follows his own view, for he wrote5: 'And any vessel that is not designated for using food with it, even though at times they are accustomed to use food with it, does not require tevilah'.
And on account of this machlokes the Acharonim wrote6 that he should immerse it without a bracha; but in such a situation it is proper to be mehader and immerse such a vessel together with another vessel that is obligated in a bracha, and thereby exempt them both.
★★★
Question: What is the din of a vessel whose primary use is not for the needs of a seudah, and one wishes to use it for the needs of a seudah — such as an office utility knife which one wishes to use to peel an orange?
Answer: The Issur V'Heter HaAruch wrote7, who wrote: 'A small knife of the sofrim with which they cut parchments — it is forbidden to eat with them temporarily if he did not immerse them'. This implies that it is forbidden to use it even temporarily for the need of a seudah.
And the Rema wrote8: 'It is forbidden to use it for the needs of a seudah, even on a temporary basis, without tevilah, even though he bought it for the need of parchments'; and from the words of the Rema it appears that they obligate tevilah for a knife of the sofrim even if one wishes to use it only in a temporary manner.
But it is explained in the Pri To'ar9 that the words of the Rema, who required tevilah, refer specifically to a seudah vessel which he set aside for another use — such as kitchen knives which he decided to use for cutting papers, where one may not permit using it even in a temporary manner. But a vessel which from the outset is not intended for the needs of a seudah, such as a utility knife, and only that he wishes to use it temporarily for a seudah — his intention is nullified before that of all other people, and whenever he uses it in a temporary manner he need not immerse it.
And see also Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak10, who wrote: 'And so it appeared to me to distinguish between a case where the essential making of the vessel and the manner of its making, in its form and shape, is for uses of matters that do not require tevilah — for then, even if it sometimes serves for the need of a seudah, this is not its regular manner of use, and it is nullified relative to the majority — and a case where, according to the design of the vessel's making, it is fit and stands for all manner of uses, even for the need of a seudah, and only that he has designated it for a matter that does not require tevilah, for then, if it sometimes serves for the need of a seudah, it requires tevilah'.
If so, in practice it is permitted to use an office utility knife in a temporary manner, such as to peel an orange and the like, without tevilah.
Notes:
1 Sha'ar 58 siman 83 ↩
2 YD siman 120 se'if 8 ↩
3 There s"k 17 ↩
4 In s"k 23 ↩
5 In s"k 19 ↩
6 See Tevilas Keilim ch. 1 halacha 2 and note 3. Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 16 ↩
7 Sha'ar 58 siman 85 ↩
8 YD there ↩
9 S"k 11 ↩
10 Vol. 9 siman 84 ↩
[12] (Halacha 186)
Question: Does a penknife require tevilah?
Answer: In a case where the person designates the penknife for eating, this penknife is obligated in tevilah and in a bracha, like the din of every vessel designated for eating1.
And at the time of the tevilah the blade of the knife must be open so that the water reaches all of it. As the Aruch HaShulchan wrote2: 'It appears to me that those folding knives — that is, that the iron is set on a hinge and is placed into the slit in the handle, and at the time of eating one opens it — its tevilah does not help at the time that the iron is placed inside the handle, for the water will not enter all of it, and this is a chatzitzah; and one must open it at the time of the tevilah'.
However, in a case where the majority of a person's use of the penknife is for other things, and only a minority of it for food, then it depends on the opinions set out below.
The Issur V'Heter HaAruch wrote3: 'For a small knife of the sofrim with which they cut parchments — it is forbidden to eat with them temporarily if he did not immerse them'. And from his words it appears that any use of the knife, even when it is not designated for that, obligates tevilah.
And in the Aruch HaShulchan4 he wondered at the words of the Issur V'Heter and wrote to explain5: 'And it appears to say that his intention is where he buys it from the outset for that purpose, that the main use will be for cutting parchments and that occasionally he will cut bread with it, for in such a case it certainly requires tevilah; but if he buys it only for parchments, even though occasionally, in a temporary manner, he also cuts bread or other food with it, it does not require tevilah, unless he does this on a regular basis. And so it seems one should rule'.
And according to this, in the view of the Issur V'Heter a penknife is obligated in tevilah with a bracha, since it is designated from the outset for eating as well.
However, the Pri Chodosh disagreed with this. For on the words of the Shulchan Aruch6, who wrote: 'Trifid"sh [=a tripod] upon which one sets pots do not require tevilah', the Pri Chodosh wrote7: 'They do not require tevilah. And even though at times they roast the food itself upon them, nevertheless with a vessel we follow the essential majority of its use'.
That is, the view of the Pri Chodosh is that we always follow the primary use of the vessel. [And the aforementioned Aruch HaShulchan explains the basis for following the majority of its uses — that since the vessel is not specifically designated for a seudah, therefore even in a case where it is also used for a seudah its definition does not change, and it is not defined as a 'seudah vessel', and only those are obligated in tevilah]. And according to this, in the view of the Pri Chodosh a penknife is exempt from tevilah.
If so, the tevilah of the penknife depends on the machlokes between the Issur V'Heter and the Pri Chodosh.
And in similar cases the poskim wrote that one must immerse such a vessel that is designated also for eating8, but without a bracha, out of concern for the views that follow the majority use of the vessel.
If so, in practice, a penknife the majority of whose use is not for the needs of eating should be immersed without a bracha.
Notes:
1 And this is the intention in the sefarim (see Sefer Tevilas Keilim ch. 11 din 2; Sefer HaKashrus ch. 4 se'if 63 p. 129) which wrote without qualification to immerse a penknife with a bracha, as explained in the responsum of the author of Sefer Tevilas Keilim, Rav Tzvi Cohen, in Shu"t Avnei Yashfeh siman 146 ↩
2 YD siman 120 se'if 18. And see Tevilas Keilim ch. 10 din 8 and the notes ↩
3 Sha'ar 58 siman 85 ↩
4 YD siman 120 se'if 40 ↩
5 Note that the Rema too, in se'if 8, appears to explain that the words of the Issur V'Heter were not said regarding a knife designated only for sofrim, as is explained in the Pri To'ar brought in the previous halacha ↩
6 In se'if 4 ↩
7 S"k 12 ↩
8 See similarly also the Pri To'ar s"k 8, who explains in this way the words of the Rema regarding the obligation of tevilah for a shechitah knife (that the Rema wrote that one immerses it without a bracha) — that it is because it also serves for the needs of eating, even though the majority of its use is for shechitah ↩
[13] (Halacha 187)
Question: May a non-Jew immerse vessels?
Answer: The Rashba wrote1: 'And also that which you asked, what is the law regarding immersing a vessel by means of a non-Jew. This I have not heard, but it appears that it is permitted. For they said so only regarding netilas yodayim for eating, in which they were stringent because of the association with terumah'2.
And the reason for this the Terumas HaDeshen wrote3: 'Furthermore, who says to us that this tevilah, which is not from tumah to taharah, and which does not render forbidden that which enters it before the tevilah as the Geonim conclude, is anything other than a decree of the verse; and from where do we know that it requires intent? That which appears to my humble opinion I have written'4.
And so ruled the Mechaber5: 'If he immersed vessels by means of an idolater, the tevilah is valid for them'.
However, the Taz wrote that the reason the Mechaber states this halacha — that a non-Jew may immerse — in the language of bedieved is because 'how would he recite a bracha over that which the idolater immerses, while the Jew does nothing? Therefore it is not fitting to do so l'chatchilah'.
And the Taz added: 'But if the Jew is also immersing some vessel at that time, only that the idolater is assisting him to immerse the remaining vessels, it turns out that the bracha applies to what the Jew is doing, and it is proper'.
And although the Pri Chodosh there disagreed with the Taz, and these are his words: 'And even l'chatchilah it is permitted, and the Jew shall recite the bracha and he shall immerse it, and not like the Taz [s"k 17]. And so it appears from the responsum of the Rashba [vol. 1] siman 511, see there'.
But from the words of the Alter Rebbe6 it appears that he agreed with the Taz, and these are his words: 'And one should not raise a difficulty from what the Taz wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 120, that when the non-Jew performs the mitzvah the Jew should not recite a bracha over it, and so it is implied in Menachos7 where it says that with a Jew one must recite a bracha, implying but not by means of a non-Jew .. for one may say that this applies only to a mitzvah in which the non-Jew's act is the completion of its mitzvah, such as milah and tevilas keilim'. And so too wrote others of the Acharonim8 like the view of the Taz.
And if so, in a case where a non-Jew immersed vessels on behalf of the Jew, it is not possible to recite a bracha over this tevilah.
However, in a case where a non-Jew immersed on behalf of a Jew, one must remember the words of the Rema, who wrote: 'But he is not believed regarding the tevilah'. That is to say, even in a case where a non-Jew takes part in the act of tevilah, he has no credibility to testify that he did so, and therefore a Jew must see him as he immerses the vessels.
★★★
Question: What is the law when a person comes to immerse and his vessels fell into the mikveh without any intent?
Answer: The Bach wrote9 from the responsum of Rav Menachem siman 275: 'One who buys vessels from non-Jews and they fell into water before tevilah — should he immerse them again with a bracha? It is written in the kuntres that they should not be immersed again'. But the Bach concludes: 'But according to what we hold .. here too, regarding tevilas keilim, it requires another tevilah without a bracha'.
But the Shach10 ruled: 'According to this, if vessels fell into water before tevilah they do not require tevilah, as is written in the responsum of the Mahara"m, and not like the Bach'.
And such is the law in a case where another Jew immersed them without the owners' knowledge; in all of these the tevilah is valid for them11.
Therefore, in conclusion, when a vessel fell into water, or someone immersed his friend's vessel without his knowledge, there is no need to immerse the vessel again, and he has lost the bracha.
Notes:
1 Vol. 1 siman 511 ↩
2 And see further in his words in vol. 3 simanim 255 and 259, that is, even if we say that tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa ↩
3 Siman 257 ↩
4 And see also what the Levush wrote, se'if 14 ↩
5 YD siman 120 se'if 15 ↩
6 Siman 263 Kuntres Acharon s"k 3 ↩
7 Daf 42b ↩
8 They are cited in Tevilas Keilim ch. 4, 8, se'if 2 note 4 ↩
9 YD siman 120 ↩
10 S"k 28 ↩
11 Pri Chodosh YD s"k 40, and see also Levush se'if 14 ↩
[14] (Halacha 188)
Question: May one rely on a young child who says that he immersed a metal vessel?
Answer: The Terumas HaDeshen wrote1: Question. Metal vessels bought from a non-Jew, which require tevilah — is it permitted to send them for tevilah by means of a minor, or not? Answer. It appears that it is not permitted to do so, since the tevilah of vessels bought from non-Jews is mid'oraisa, we do not believe a minor regarding it, even though it is within his power and is a matter involving no trouble, as is proven in Tosafos in the first perek of Pesachim2 (4b, Tosafos d"h heimnuhu), that Tosafos took specifically women and slaves as being believed regarding a prohibition mid'oraisa, but not minors'.
We thus find that the din of whether a minor is believed regarding tevilas keilim depends on the machlokes as to whether tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa or mid'rabanan.
And the Mechaber wrote3 (YD siman 120 se'if 14): 'We do not believe a minor regarding tevilas keilim'. And the Rema wrote: 'But if they immersed them before an adult, it is a valid tevilah'.
And the Taz wrote4 (siman 120 s"k 16, and so too in the Be'er HaGolah s"k 24) that the reason a minor is not believed is: 'because tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa'.
Therefore, in practice, since the halacha is that tevilas keilim is mid'oraisa, one should not give a minor vessels to immerse, unless an adult sees him.
★★★
Question: Regarding the tevilah of glass vessels, whose obligation is mid'rabanan, will a minor be believed to say that he immersed them?
Answer: Rabbi Akiva Eiger wrote in his glosses on the above Taz: 'According to this it appears to my humble opinion that with glass vessels we do believe a minor, for with glass vessels all agree that the tevilah is only mid'rabanan5 as the Pri Chodosh wrote6 (in this siman s"k 3 and s"k 26), and so too wrote the Shaagas Aryeh, and so too is written in the responsa Panim Meiros'7.
And the Chochmas Adam wrote8 that from the words of the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch, who did not distinguish and wrote without qualification 'We do not believe a minor regarding tevilas keilim', it is proven that a minor is not believed at all, even regarding vessels that are mid'rabanan. And so it is ruled in practice in the Ben Ish Chai9, and in the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch10. (And see also below in the words of the Alter Rebbe).
Therefore, in practice, it is fitting l'chatchilah not to rely on a child and not to send him to immerse a vessel, even vessels whose obligation is mid'rabanan.
[And the basis of the matter is according to the Rema11, who wrote regarding a minor: 'And if he testifies regarding a prohibition mid'rabanan leniently, and no presumption of prohibition has been established, such as bedikas chametz, he is believed, for the Rabbanan believed him in a matter mid'rabanan; but if a presumption of prohibition has been established, he is not believed at all'. And the Pri Megadim learned from this12 that a minor is not believed to testify even regarding glass vessels that they have been immersed, because they are in a presumption of prohibition.
However, when it is within the minor's power to do it, he is believed, as the Magen Avraham wrote13 regarding bedikas chametz: 'Rather, there are those who are believed because it is within their power, see there; and so it is implied in Yoreh Deah siman 120 in the Beis Yosef in the name of the Terumas HaDeshen, that according to the opinion that tevilas keilim is mid'rabanan they are believed, even though a presumption of prohibition has been established'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe14 regarding bedikas chametz: 'And even though wherever a prohibition mid'rabanan has been established as a presumption a minor is not believed to say "I have rectified15 the prohibition", as is written in Yoreh Deah siman 127 — and here too a presumption of prohibition has been established, that the house is full of chametz all year — even so the minor is believed to say "I have removed the chametz from the house", since it was within his power to remove it; and anything that was within his power to do, he is believed to say that he did it, as is explained in Yoreh Deah there and in siman 120, see there'.
And therefore, seemingly, according to this, when it is within the minor's power to immerse the vessels (those obligated mid'rabanan — such as glass vessels) he will be believed.
But it should be noted that in Yoreh Deah16 the Alter Rebbe limited the credibility of a minor in a matter within his power in a mid'rabanan case only to where the matter has no support from the Torah, and according to this there is room to deliberate regarding the tevilah of glass vessels17. And this still requires further study].
Notes:
1 Kuntres Taharas Tevilah at its end, os 3, cited in Darkei Teshuvah siman 120 s"k 104 ↩
2 See the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos pages 292 and 417, that even in a case of doubt regarding the tevilah of glass vessels, whose obligation is mid'rabanan, one is obligated to immerse them ↩
3 Tevilas Keilim ch. 8 se'if 1 and note 2 ↩
4 Siman 257 ↩
5 12a d"h v'tibaei ↩
6 Siman 120 se'if 14 ↩
7 Taz s"k 16 and the Shach s"k 28 ↩
8 YD siman 1 s"k 42 in the name of the Beis Hillel siman 120 s"k 2 ↩
9 Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 51 ↩
10 YD 120 s"k 5. And see what is written in Tevilas Keilim ch. 8 din 2 note 5 ↩
11 YD siman 127 se'if 3 ↩
12 OC siman 451 Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 6 ↩
13 Siman 437 s"k 8 ↩
14 Siman 432 se'if 10 ↩
15 In handwritten glosses (author unknown) on the Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Zhitomir 5616 edition, in my possession, he notes on the wording 'תקנתי', which implies that it is within his power. And he notes that it seemingly should read 'נתקן' ↩
16 Siman 1 s"k 42 ↩
17 See Sdei Chemed vol. 7, Peas HaSadeh, Klalim os 124. And note from the Mareh HaPanim, Maseches Pesachim ch. 1 halacha 6 ↩
[16] (Halacha 190)
Tevilas keilim on Shabbos (3)
Question: What is the halachic solution for a person who forgot to immerse a vessel before Shabbos and there is no non-Jew in his vicinity?
Answer: The Beis Yosef wrote1: 'The Maggid Mishneh wrote in perek 4 of Hilchos Yom Tov2 in the name of the Rashba, that vessels of use bought from non-Jews which require tevilah — if it is a vessel made for drawing with it or for filling water with it from the spring, he fills with it and it is tahor, similar to what they said in perek 2 of Yom Tov3: one may draw with a tamei bucket and it becomes tahor; and so it is written in the Hagahos Maimoniyos4. And it appears from their words that that which it teaches "bucket" is not specifically so, but rather the same law applies to every vessel, so long as he fills it, for it appears only like one who wishes to take water; and so it is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi, perek 2 of Beitzah5, for we learn there: Rabbi Hoshaya taught, a person may fill a tamei vessel from the pit and act with ha'aramah with it and immerse it; it was taught, if his buckets fell into the pit he acts with ha'aramah with them and immerses them'.
And so wrote the Rema6: 'And if it is a vessel fit to be filled with water, he should fill it with water from the mikveh and it counts for it as a tevilah'. And the Magen Avraham wrote7: 'And it appears to me that he should not recite a bracha, for then it is not evident that he is doing it for the sake of tevilah; and so it is written in the Tashbetz, קלף'.
And so wrote the Alter Rebbe8: 'And if it is a vessel fit to be filled with water, he should fill it with water from the mikveh and it counts for it as a tevilah, and he does not appear like one who repairs, since the matter is not recognizable that he intends to immerse it, for one who sees says: he needed to draw these waters, since not everyone knows that he has not yet immersed it. And he should not recite a bracha over this tevilah, so that it should not be recognizable that he intends it for the sake of tevilah'.
As stated, this solution helps only for a vessel that is fit to be filled with water, and not for cutlery and the like. However, the Pri Megadim wrote9 that one may take soiled cutlery and wash it in the waters of the mikveh in order to clean it, and thus it will count for it as a tevilah. But in the Ketzos HaShulchan10 he wrote that all this is in a mikveh in which it is usual to wash vessels; otherwise he appears like one who repairs. And moreover, if we were to say that it is permitted to immerse a soiled vessel in any mikveh, we would thereby have nullified the prohibition of tevilas keilim on Shabbos from its very root, for everyone would soil his vessels and go and immerse them.
★ ★ ★
Question: During the time of bein hashmashos, is it permitted to immerse vessels that a person needs for Shabbos?
Answer: The Alter Rebbe wrote11: 'And so too it is permitted to immerse vessels at bein hashmashos if he did not immerse them while it was still day and he needs them for Shabbos, since he has no other vessels'. And the Pri Megadim wrote12 that he should recite a bracha over this tevilah, (and therefore this option at bein hashmashos is preferable to the option of transferring ownership to a non-Jew, in which case he cannot recite a bracha, and not like the Taz s"k 1).
And the Alter Rebbe further wrote13: 'And there is one who was in doubt whether they permitted all this also at bein hashmashos of motzei Shabbos, for perhaps out of doubt the sanctity of the essence of the day has not departed; and one may be lenient'.
Therefore, in practice, a person who needs to use a vessel during Shabbos may immerse it at the bein hashmashos of Friday night and likewise at that of motzei Shabbos.
Notes:
1 At the end of siman 323 ↩
2 Halacha 18 ↩
3 18a ↩
4 Hilchos Shabbos ch. 23 os 5 ↩
5 Halacha 2 ↩
6 Siman 323 se'if 7 in the Hagahah ↩
7 S"k 13 ↩
8 Siman 323 se'if 8 ↩
9 OC siman 261 Eshel Avraham s"k 3 ↩
10 Siman 146 Badei HaShulchan os 7 ↩
11 Siman 261 se'if 2 ↩
12 Mishbetzos Zahav s"k 1 ↩
13 Siman 342 ↩
[17] (Halacha 191)
What is the din when a Jew bought a vessel from a non-Jew in order to sell it onward — is he obligated to immerse it, or is the one who buys from him obligated in its tevilah?
Answer: In the Beis Yosef1 (siman 120) he wrote: 'And it appeared to me that a Jew who bought a vessel from a non-Jew for merchandise, if he sold it to another Jew, the buyer need not immerse it, since it was not made obligatory in the hand of the first one, for it stood only for merchandise. And it is similar to that of the Hagahos Ashiri regarding one who took it to cut with and not for the needs of a seudah. But since he concluded and wrote "for it is borrowed in his hand", it implies that if it were purchased in his hand it would be obligated in tevilah; and if so, the same law applies to one who takes from those that stand with a Jew for merchandise, since he took them from a non-Jew. And so instructed my teacher, the great Rav, Mahar"i Bei Rav z"l'.
From the words of the Beis Yosef it emerges that the seller is not obligated to immerse the vessels, but the second Jew who buys from him for eating is obligated in tevilah, with a bracha.
And so ruled the Rema2 in Shulchan Aruch YD siman 120 se'if 8 in the Hagahah: 'And likewise if the second Jew bought it from the first one for the needs of a seudah, it requires tevilah by the second one'.
★ ★★
Question: What is the din if the Jew who bought vessels from a non-Jew for merchandise did in fact immerse the vessels?
Answer: There are those who say3 that since the vessel was not made obligated in tevilah while by the first Jew4, consequently even if he immerses the vessel, when the second Jew buys from him he will be obligated to immerse it again.
And so wrote the responsa Minchas Yitzchak5: 'And regarding the minhag of the shopkeeper to immerse the vessels that he sells, that I wrote that according to what several poskim hold, that one who takes for merchandise does not require tevilah, as is explained (in YD siman 102 se'if 8) and in the Taz and Shach there, and it is cited in my sefarim (vol. 1 siman 44) as to combining this view even for a leniency — if so, all the more so should one be concerned for stringency, to require the one who buys from the shopkeeper to immerse again when he buys it for eating'.
But in the responsa Mishneh Halachos6 he wrote: 'And in the responsa Minchas Yitzchak vol. 7 siman 43 os 2 he wrote that it is obvious to him that one must immerse again, and so it is brought in his name in the sefer Tevilas Keilim ch. 3 os 25. But to my humble opinion it is simple that it does not require tevilah, since the vessel was immersed after it left the tumah of an akum into the hand of a Jew; and even though the first Jew was exempt from immersing, that means that there was no obligation upon the Jew to immerse, but the vessel, upon which the tumah of an akum took effect under the hand of the akum — since it left the hand of the akum and was immersed, the tumah of the akum has already departed from it. And in truth, even if the vessel itself fell into water without intent, even by an apostate, this suffices for it; see Chasam Sofer YD siman 120'. And in accordance with his words it is seemingly proven from the responsa Avnei Nezer7.
Therefore, in practice, a seller should not immerse vessels that stand for merchandise. And if he immersed them, the buyer must immerse them again without a bracha [however, in a case where he knows that the buyer will not immerse, it is fitting that he immerse the vessels, and it will help according to some of the views at least].
Tomorrow, with Hashem's help, we will write regarding one who buys a vessel in order to give it as a gift, such as in mishloach manos
Notes:
1 Responsa Mekor Chaim siman 14. Responsa Minchas Shlomo vol. 2 siman 66 os 20. Kovetz MiBeis Levi, inyanei YD p. 148. Tevilas Keilim ch. 8 os 6 ↩
2 Teshuvah number 191 ↩
3 Mishmeres HaBayis ch. 3 se'if 3. HaBayis B'Kashruso p. 100. And the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 34 note 320 ↩
4 Teshuvah number 175 on the din of tevilas keilim, and teshuvah number 182 on the prohibition of use ↩
5 Responsa Mekor Chaim there ↩
6 Minchas Shlomo siman 66 os 20 ↩
7 Teshuvos V'Hanhagos vol. 1 siman 467 ↩
8 See in Mishmeres HaBayis there ↩
[19] (Halacha 193)
Question: What is the counsel in a pressing situation for a Jew who is in a place where he has no mikveh and needs to drink from a vessel that he buys from a non-Jew?
Answer: a. We have already learned that the obligation of tevilah is when the vessel enters the domain of the Jew, as is written in the Yerushalmi at the end of Maseches Avodah Zarah. But when the vessel remains in the ownership of the non-Jew, the Jew may use it without tevilah (of course, when it is a new vessel and the like, where there is no problem of absorptions of forbidden food), as the Mechaber wrote1: 'One who borrows or rents a vessel from an idolater — it does not require tevilah'.
b. And behold, there are those who innovated2 (on the strength of the question of why they were not commanded regarding tevilah after the war with Sichon, but only after the war with Midian) that a vessel which a non-Jew declared ownerless and the Jew acquired from hefker — since it did not come into the hand of a Jew directly from the domain of the non-Jew, it does not require tevilah from the Torah, for there was an interruption of the domain of hefker between the domain of the non-Jew and that of the Jew.
But many of the Acharonim rejected this innovation, as is written in the responsa Har Tzvi3: 'But in any event, to my humble opinion, without compelling proof it is difficult to innovate that an interruption between the domains nullifies the mitzvah of tevilah'. And especially since the question from which he derived his innovation can be resolved in other ways, as the Rebbe too explains at length4 in clarifying this question.
c. However, so long as the vessel remains hefker and the Jew has not acquired it, it is simple to the poskim5 that there is no obligation of tevilah6.
d. On the basis of this — that when the vessel has left the domain of the non-Jew and was declared hefker and has not yet entered the domain of a Jew it does not require tevilah — the poskim wrote7 that when a Jew is in a place where he has no possibility of immersing the vessels, he can, when he buys a new vessel, have in mind that he does not wish to acquire the vessel into his domain, and this vessel will remain hefker, and thus he may use this vessel.
But it is important to note8 that this heter is temporary, and one must find a way to immerse the vessels as soon as possible.
e. And a ma'aseh rav was written by Rav Chaim Naeh9: 'And incidentally, as we are occupied with the halachos of new vessels, here is the place to relate what I heard from the chassid R' Refoel, son of the chassid R' Boruch Shalom HaKohen n"y: an incident that occurred with k"k Admu"r Moharar Shalom Dovber of Lubavitch n"e, who was travelling by train, and at one of the stations he bought a cup with water from the hand of a non-Jew, and the train travelled on its way; and after he drank the water he threw the cup out through the window of the train. And it appears that the reason was that in order to be able to use the cup without tevilah he had in mind that he was not acquiring the cup, and that he paid the money only for the water, and the cup was never his and never entered the domain of a Jew at all; and this intent of his he fulfilled in actual deed, in that he afterwards threw the cup away. And a ma'aseh rav we learn from this incident'.
In practice, in a case of great pressing need, when a Jew 'buys' a new vessel from a non-Jew he may have in mind that he does not wish to acquire it into his domain, so that this vessel will remain hefker, and he may use it temporarily.
Notes:
1 YD siman 120 se'if 8 ↩
2 Responsa Chedvas Yaakov siman 42, and Kli Chemdah, parshas Teitzei 21, 11 os 6 in the name of the holy Rav, Rabbi Avraham of Tchechanov ↩
3 YD siman 109 ↩
4 Likkutei Sichos vol. 18, parshas Matos, sichah 2 ↩
5 See sefer Tevilas Keilim ch. 3 note 13 ↩
6 Note that in Minchas Shlomo (vol. 2 siman 66 os 15) he wrote that even when the vessel was in the ownership of a Jew and he declared it hefker, there is no obligation of tevilah on this vessel so long as it remains hefker; and his reason is that there is no one to obligate, and consequently there is no prohibition of use. But it requires study whether his words fit with those who hold that the prohibition of use is mid'oraisa, and it is possible that the definition of tevilah is as a matir ↩
7 Tevilas Keilim ch. 3 din 8 and ch. 4 din 19 ↩
8 All the more so from the words of the Taz and the Alter Rebbe in OC siman 323 regarding a vessel whose ownership was transferred to a non-Jew on Shabbos ↩
9 In Ketzos HaShulchan vol. 5 siman 146 in Badei HaShulchan os 9. Cited in Tevilas Keilim ch. 3 note 15 ↩
[20] (Halacha 195)
Question: Must one immerse the lid of a pot or a frying pan?
Answer: The Or Zarua wrote1 in the name of the Rashbam: 'And an iron vessel that is inverted over the bread to bake it .. and likewise that which is called a tripod, upon which one sets the cauldron, does not require tevilah, for one does not prepare the needs of a seudah inside it; but iron lids with which one covers the cauldron require tevilah like the cauldron itself, for they assist in cooking like the cauldron itself, and they are considered as one vessel'.
And so wrote the Beis Yosef2, YD siman 120, in the name of the Hagahos Ashiri: 'An iron vessel that is inverted over the bread to bake it, and likewise that which is placed over the cauldron, does not require tevilah; but an iron lid with which one covers a cauldron or a pot requires tevilah'.
Regarding the covering of the bread, the Pri To'ar wrote3 that it means: 'the covering of the oven in which one bakes the bread; and because the heat should not go out through the hole, one covers that hole in the oven with a covering, and this does not require tevilah, since it is like the appurtenances of the appurtenances of the bread, and like the law of a tripod upon which the pot is set, etc.'.
This din is brought in the Rema4 in practice, and these are his words: '...they do not require tevilah - and likewise a covering that is inverted over the bread to bake it; but the lid of a pot requires tevilah'.
And in the Aruch HaShulchan5 he wrote: 'And likewise their coverings that are over the foods, such as a covering that is over the bread — it does not touch the food itself; but the lids of pots in which one cooks require tevilah, since the cooking bubbles upward and the food touches the lid as well. And likewise the lid of a frying pan, it appears to me that it is like the lid of cooking and requires tevilah, for frying too bubbles upward'.
And the poskim wrote6 that the tevilah of a lid is with a bracha, like the vessel itself. However, when he immerses a vessel together with its lid he recites 'al tevilas kli' and not 'al tevilas keilim', unless it is a type of lid in which one can cook on its own, in which case he recites 'al tevilas keilim'7.
Regarding stoppers - the caps of bottles, the poskim wrote8 that if they are stoppers whose purpose is only to guard against dirt entering and the like, it does not require tevilah. However, if it is a cap that preserves the quality of the beverage, such as the cap of carbonated drinks, or the cap of wine9, and likewise a bottle which it is usual to lay on its side so that the drink touches the cap — he should immerse it without a bracha10.
Therefore, in practice, every covering that assists in the cooking or the frying is obligated in tevilah and in a bracha, whereas a covering that only guards or protects and the like is exempt from tevilah.
Notes:
1 Piskei Avodah Zarah siman 289 ↩
2 YD siman 120 ↩
3 S"k 9 ↩
4 YD siman 120 se'if 5 ↩
5 YD siman 120 se'if 32 ↩
6 Ben Ish Chai, year 2, parshas Matos os 10. Taharas Yisroel os 11, that this is simple from the implication of the poskim ↩
7 Tevilas Keilim ch. 11 os 59 ↩
8 See the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 20 note 201 ↩
9 Kuntres Tevilas Keilim se'if 20 ↩
10 Tevilas Keilim ch. 11 os 180 and note 141 ↩
[21] (Halacha 196)
Question: We have seen that the halachos of tevilas keilim are derived from a pasuk that speaks about kashering vessels from absorbed prohibited substance. Is it possible to immerse the vessel half at a time, as is permitted in kashering vessels, or must one immerse the entire vessel at once?
Answer: We learned in the Sifra, parshas Shemini1: 'במים יובא — all of it at once. Could it be part of it? The verse states ובא השמש וטהר: just as the taharah stated below is with the coming of the sun, all of it at once, so too here the entry of the vessel is all of it at once'. And so wrote the Ritva in the name of the Ramban2.
And on this basis the Acharonim wrote3: that the entire vessel must enter the water at one time, so that not even the slightest part of it remains outside the water; and if it is large and one cannot immerse all of it at once, it is forbidden to immerse it in halves, similar to the tevilah of a niddah. And it is not comparable to hagalah, which is to expel the prohibited substance, and since he performed hagalah on part of it, that part has expelled; but here it is on account of tumah, and since part of it remained outside the water the tevilah does not count.
★ ★ ★
Question: In tevilas keilim, must one be careful about a chatzitzah?
Answer: We learned in the Sifra, parshas Metzora4: 'וכבס בגדיו ורחץ בשרו — the verse juxtaposed the washing of his garments to the washing of his flesh: just as the washing of his body is with cleanliness, so too the washing of his garments is with cleanliness; hence we have learned that things interpose with vessels'. And although this pasuk was stated regarding the tevilah of vessels from tumah to taharah, nevertheless many Rishonim learned5 that this halacha applies also to the tevilah of vessels taken from a non-Jew6.
And in the Mordechai7 he wrote: 'And in Toras Kohanim it derives from אך [את הזהב]8, "smooth", that a new knife, if there is rust on it, one must remove it; and in Sefer Or Zarua he ruled that if he did not remove it the tevilah does not count. However, I found in one teshuvah that if he cannot remove the rust, and only a little of it remains there, it is a minority that he is not particular about and it does not interpose in the tevilah'.
Thus we have seen that it is a Torah law that a chatzitzah invalidates also in the tevilah of vessels purchased from a non-Jew.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is there a measure for a chatzitzah that invalidates?
Answer: The Gemara in maseches Eruvin9 says: 'Rabbi Yitzchak said: By Torah law, most of it and he is particular about it — it interposes; and that which he is not particular about — it does not interpose. And they decreed regarding most of it which he is not particular about, on account of most of it which he is particular about; and regarding a minority of it which he is particular about, on account of most of it which he is particular about'.
That is, that by Torah law a chatzitzah that prevents the tevilah is only when the chatzitzah is found on most of the item and the person is also particular about it. But the Chachomim decreed: a. regarding a chatzitzah that is found on most of it even though he is not particular about it. b. and likewise if the chatzitzah is found only on a minority of it, but it is something that people are particular about.
And so ruled the Mechaber10: 'Anything that it is usual to be particular about interposes; and if not, it does not interpose unless it covered most of it. And the Rema added in his hagah: 'Blackening that is stuck to a cauldron on the outside is like the wall of the vessel, and that is its normal way, and it does not interpose'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Must one l'chatchilah remove even a slight chatzitzah that he is not particular about?
Answer: The Issur V'Heter wrote11: 'But where it is possible, one should be careful even with a minority'. And so appears to be the opinion of the Mechaber, who wrote12 that 'one must remove the rust before the tevilah, and if he did not remove it, if he is particular about it, it interposes'.
Therefore one must be careful l'chatchilah to remove everything, even a minority that he is not particular about.
Notes:
1 Parsha 6, beginning of perek 8, os 8 ↩
2 Avodah Zarah 75b, d"h hava amina ↩
3 Chochmas Adam klal 73 os 15. Pischei Teshuvah s"k 3. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch siman 37 se'if 10. Ben Ish Chai Shanah Beis, Matos, se'if 3 ↩
4 Parsha 3, perek 5, os 7 ↩
5 Raavad, Avodah Zarah 75b. And the references in Encyclopedia Talmudis vol. 17, entry chatzitzah, note 69 ↩
6 And see the Nimukei Yosef (in Shitas HaKadmonim, Avodah Zarah 75b), who derived it from a different pasuk: 'that a chatzitzah invalidates it, for the verse juxtaposed it to the tevilah of a niddah, as it is written אך במי נדה יתחטא' ↩
7 Avodah Zarah remez 859 ↩
8 However, there are Rishonim who explained this derivation as referring to hagalah, as is explained in Rashi ↩
9 4b ↩
10 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 202 se'if 2 ↩
11 Klal 58 siman 93 ↩
12 Siman 120 se'if 13, (however the Rema wrote to be stringent regarding the tevilah of a niddah as explained in siman 198 se'if 1. And he was lenient regarding netilas yadayim as explained in OC siman 161 se'if 1, and so ruled the Alter Rebbe in se'if 3) ↩
[22] (Halacha 197)
We learned in the previous halacha that when there is a chatzitzah on the vessel and one is particular about it, the tevilah is not valid.
Question: Does being particular depend on each person individually?
Answer: The definition of being particular is not measured according to each person personally, but rather according to most people! And this is derived from the tevilah of a niddah, as the Mechaber ruled1: 'Even if she is never particular about it, since it is the way of most people to be particular about it, it is a chatzitzah'.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the halacha when most people are not particular but he is particular about this matter — must he remove it before the tevilah?
Answer: The Mordechai wrote2: 'The Re'em wrote in his sefer: that which we learned that blood, ink and milk when dry are a chatzitzah and when moist are not a chatzitzah — this is because of being particular, for regarding a dry substance it is the way of people to be particular, and regarding moist ones they are not particular; but if he is particular, even a moist one is a chatzitzah'.
And the Alter Rebbe wrote3 concerning netilas yadayim: 'But if he is particular about it he must remove it. And there are those who say that anything which most people are not particular about, even though he is particular, his opinion is nullified relative to that of all people; and one may rely on their words regarding netilas yadayim, whose essence is from Divrei Sofrim, but not regarding the tevilah of the entire body, as will be explained in YD siman 198'.
And on this basis, regarding tevilas keilim4, in a case where he is particular one must remove it even if it is a case where most of the world is not particular.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the halacha regarding the stickers of the factory/firm — may they be left on the vessel?
Answer: As we have seen, everything depends on the practice of most people. If so, price stickers and the like, which it is the way to remove, are a chatzitzah. But stickers of the company name and the like, which it is the way of most people to leave on, are not a chatzitzah for the tevilah, and therefore one need not remove them5.
When removing the sticker one must make sure to remove the adhesive from the vessel thoroughly as well, so that there will not be a chatzitzah.
★ ★ ★
Question: When a vessel was immersed and they did not notice and did not remove the interposing substance, is the tevilah valid after the fact?
Answer: It is written in Issur V'Heter HaAruch6: 'A minority which he is particular about, and a majority even which he is not particular about, is a chatzitzah, like the law of the tevilah of a person, and another tevilah is required — even with a bracha if he diverted his attention'.
Therefore one must be careful to remove anything that interposes; and if it is something he is particular about, or something that is found on most of the vessel, the tevilah did not count for the vessel and it must be immersed again.
Notes:
1 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 198 se'if 1. And see also Aruch HaShulchan siman 202 se'if 3 ↩
2 Shevuos remez 748. And it is cited in the Rema siman 198 se'if 14 in the hagah, Taz there s"k 3, and Shach s"k 2, and that so wrote the Beis Yosef in the view of the Rambam ↩
3 Siman 161 se'if 3 ↩
4 Not only regarding the tevilah of metal vessels, concerning which the Alter Rebbe wrote that the primary view is that they are mid'Oraisa, but so too regarding glass vessels if we say that their essence is from the Torah ↩
5 Tevilas Keilim ch. 5 din 2 and note 2* ↩
6 Sha'ar 58 siman 93 ↩
[23] (Halacha 201)
Ways of holding the vessel at the time of the tevilah (1)
Question: How may one hold the vessel at the time of the tevilah in a manner that there will be no chatzitzah between his hand and the vessel, so that the entire vessel will be immersed?
Answer: a. The Mishnah in maseches Mikvaos1 says: 'One who holds on to a person or to vessels and immerses them — they are tamei. And if he rinsed his hand in the water, they are tahor. Rabbi Shimon says, he should loosen his grip so that water will come into them'.
And the Rishonim disagree as to how to explain the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon. The Rambam2 (Hilchos Mikvaos ch. 2 halacha 11) holds that the Tanna Kamma is more stringent, for according to him one may not hold loosely, as a decree lest he not loosen his hands as required; and the Rambam ruled like the Tanna Kamma. But the Rashba in Toras HaBayis3 (HaAruch bayis 7 sha'ar 7, 32b) disagrees and holds that the Tanna Kamma too agrees that one may hold loosely, and they disagree only in a case where he rinsed his hands, whether he still needs to hold loosely — Rabbi Shimon being stringent in this that he must hold loosely. If so, according to the Rashba's approach it emerges that even according to the Tanna Kamma there are two possibilities for holding the vessel at the time of tevilah: manner 1) he should wet his hand in water and then immerse; second manner 2) that he should hold it loosely.
In practice the Mechaber4 decided like the approach of the Rashba, and this is his wording: 'The vessel must be loose in his hand at the time of tevilah, for if he grips it tightly in his hand it is a chatzitzah. And if he first moistened his hand in water, there is no concern'. And so ruled the Pri Chodosh5.
b. But the Shach6 wondered at the Mechaber and wrote: 'This requires study, for the Beis Yosef and the Acharonim did not cite any dispute in this, and the Rambam in ch. 2 of Hilchos Mikvaos din 11 wrote: one who holds on to a person and vessels and immerses them — they remain in their tumah, and even though he loosened his hands, as a decree lest he not loosen', end of his words. This implies that according to the Shach one must be stringent and not immerse the vessel while holding it loosely, and so wrote the Knesses HaGedolah7. (Likewise the Acharonim wrote8 that we are not expert in what counts as loose.)
And the Pischei Teshuvah wrote in explaining the approach of the Shach9: 'And it implies that his view is that here too, regarding the tevilah of vessels of non-Jews, even though he loosened his hands the tevilah did not count, as a decree lest he not loosen'.
But it has already been noted10 that there is somewhat of a contradiction between the words of the Shach regarding tevilas keilim and his words in Hilchos Niddah11, where he inclines to be lenient regarding a loose grip even with respect to the tevilah of a niddah. And if so, all the more so with respect to tevilas keilim.
c. And indeed, with respect to netilas yadayim they were stringent l'chatchilah even regarding a loose ring, as the Rema12 and the Alter Rebbe13 ruled: 'A ring, when it is tight on the finger, is a chatzitzah, and when loose it is not a chatzitzah, since the water comes between it and the finger. Nevertheless, l'chatchilah one should remove the ring before netilah even if it is loose, for we are not expert in what is [called] loose, and they will come to be lenient even with a tight one; and after the fact the netilah counted for him if it was loose'. Nevertheless they wrote14 that there is no proof from this to be stringent regarding tevilas keilim; and in the words of the Gaon and Chassid R' Yosef Tumarkin15: 'Therefore in my humble opinion it is specifically regarding netilas yadayim that they decreed concerning loose items, since we are not expert in the measure of looseness etc., for the water comes by way of passing over and does not linger to come in because of the rings, and therefore a greater degree of looseness is required etc., and we are not expert in this.
And likewise, even if we were to learn like the approach of the Acharonim16 that regarding the tevilah of a niddah the Rema was stringent about a loose grip, they have already written17 that one cannot compare the stringency of the tevilah of a niddah — where they decreed out of concern that one may come to an issur of kares — to tevilas keilim, where even if one transgressed and used the vessel without tevilah the food itself is not rendered forbidden.
d. In practice, although the primary ruling in tevilas keilim is like the words of the Mechaber who permits a loose grip, some have written18: 'And it is proper to shift the hand from place to place while holding the vessel under the water, for then, at the moment of the change of grip, the waters of the mikveh surround every place around the vessel without any deficiency whatsoever'. For then, even according to the Shach who is stringent regarding a loose grip, the tevilah certainly counted.
If so, when it is possible it is fitting that while holding the vessel in the water one should release the vessel for a moment, and thus the tevilah will be l'mehadrin according to all opinions.
Notes:
1 Ch. 8 mishnah 5 ↩
2 Hilchos Mikvaos ch. 2 halacha 11 ↩
3 HaAruch bayis 7 sha'ar 7, 32b ↩
4 YD siman 120 se'if 2. And siman 198 se'if 28 ↩
5 S"k 8 ↩
6 Siman 120 s"k 6 ↩
7 Hagahos HaTur s"k 6 ↩
8 Sidrei Taharah siman 198 s"k 57 ↩
9 There s"k 5 ↩
10 Teshuvah MeAhavah in ילק"מ. Mekor Mayim Chaim, cited in Tevilas Keilim ch. 10 note 2 ↩
11 Siman 198 s"k 31 ↩
12 Siman 161 se'if 3 ↩
13 There se'if 7 ↩
14 Levushei Srad, Chidushei Dinim to YD din 88 s"k 198. And see the references in Shu"t Mahari"t siman 4 note 17. Taharas HaBayis vol. 3, dinei chatzitzah os 2 at its beginning ↩
15 Shu"t Mahari"t there ↩
16 Beis Hillel, and Sidrei Taharah s"k 6 ↩
17 Tiferes L'Moshe, cited in Pischei Teshuvah s"k 5. And in Teshuvah MeAhavah in ילק"מ ↩
18 Darkei Teshuvah siman 120 s"k 30, who wrote from Kuntres Tevilas Taharah — by the holy Gaon, author of Daas Kedoshim ↩
[24] (Halacha 202)
Ways of holding the vessel at the time of the tevilah (2)
In the previous halacha we learned that one may hold the vessel loosely and immerse it in that way, or release the vessel slightly in the water.
Question: When a person is apprehensive about releasing the vessel in the water, and about not holding it loosely in the mikveh, what is the best way to immerse it?
Answer: a. The second manner of tevilah that we saw in the Mishnah regarding holding the vessel for tevilah is, as stated, to moisten the hand in water before the tevilah. But in the Mishnah it is not stated explicitly whether the intention is that he should wet his hand specifically in the water of the mikveh, or whether he may wet his hand in any water; and simply understood, the intention1 is that any water is effective, since it joins with the water of the mikveh. But the Rema2 derived from the words of the Mordechai: 'It implies that the fact that it helps if he moistened his hand in water is specifically in the water of a mikveh, but not in detached water'. And so he wrote in practice3 in the hagah in Shulchan Aruch: and specifically that he moistened his hands in the water of a mikveh, but not in detached water'. And so wrote the Levush and the Shach4 in s"k 7.
And the Mateh Yonasan5 explains that the Rema's intention is not that it suffices to wet the hand in the water of the mikveh and then take it out, but rather 'he means that he first placed his hands down beneath the water of the mikveh, and afterwards, while they are still under the water without any detachment, he takes the vessel into his hands — for then it is not a chatzitzah, since it was not detached from the mikveh at all, the status of mikveh is still upon it and has not been nullified, since it is in any case moist enough to transfer moisture. This is not so if he first took them out and detached the water from its place of connection, for then the status of mikveh is not upon it, and neither is it a connection to the mikveh if he does not loosen his hands, for moisture that transfers moisture in such a case we do not say is a connection such that the status of mikveh should be upon it'.
And so too wrote the Levush6: 'And specifically that he moistened his hand in the water of a mikveh that is valid for tevilah, and did not take his hand out of the mikveh until he immersed, but not in detached water'.
b. However, the Taz7 disagreed with the Rema and wrote: 'In truth, one who immerses a vessel with his hand in the mikveh does not need the water of the mikveh; rather, since there is no weight of a vessel there, there is properly a contact of the detached water — which is already moist upon his hand — with the water of the mikveh'. But there is a condition in this, that he not hold it very tightly, and in the words of the Taz there: 'But nevertheless the person immersing a vessel must not grasp the vessel forcefully, for if so it will also be like the weight of the vessel that we mentioned; rather a moderate grip'. And so ruled the Pri Chodosh8, and the Pri To'ar9 and others of the Acharonim.
c. The Tzemach Tzedek10 wrote: 'Like the matter of the law explained in the Mishnah at the end of ch. 8, one who holds on to a person etc., and if he rinsed his hands in water etc.; and see in Mishmeres HaBayis at its end that the reason is that moisture that transfers moisture is a connection, and so wrote the Tur in siman 198 and in the Shulchan Aruch there se'if 28. And if so it appears that she should first soak the kalten in a vessel containing hot water that is almost boiling, which will certainly be absorbed throughout the entire kalten far more than cold water, for they soften; and see in perek Eilu Treifos p. 46b, "with cold water no, for they harden" etc. And through leaving it for some time, such as three or four minutes, the entire braid will be absorbed through and through with water that is more than merely moist. And afterwards she should immediately enter the mikveh, and then through moisture that transfers moisture there will be a connection; it emerges that the water within the kalten is considered joined to the water of the mikveh, and there is no chatzitzah here at all'.
And some have written11 that from his words it appears that he ruled like the words of the Taz, that even though there is only ordinary water, moisture that transfers moisture suffices for it to join with the water of the mikveh and be considered as the water of the mikveh.
d. In practice, l'chatchilah, when he is able to put his hand into the mikveh without the vessel and to pass the vessel with his other hand to the hand that is in the mikveh, this is the preferred way. But when he has no possibility of doing so: if it is a vessel that is not heavy he should moisten his hand in water and then hold the vessel in a manner that is not tight and immerse it in the mikveh; however, in a case where he is immersing a heavy vessel he must do as above, that his hands be moist from the water of the mikveh.
Notes:
1 See Pri Chodosh s"k 9, Gra s"k 7 ↩
2 Darkei Moshe s"k 2 ↩
3 YD siman 120 se'if 2 ↩
4 S"k 7 ↩
5 There in se'if 2. And so wrote the Chasam Sofer in Chidushei YD siman 120 ↩
6 YD siman 120 se'if 2 ↩
7 There s"k 4. And Divrei Chamudos preceded him, Hilchos Mikvaos os 97 ↩
8 S"k 9 ↩
9 S"k 6 ↩
10 Shu"t YD siman 158 os 8 ↩
11 See Taharah K'Halacha vol. 2 ch. 20, Biurim os 3, p. 512 ↩
[25] (Halacha 203)
Ways of holding the vessel at the time of the tevilah (3)
Question: Instead of holding the vessel in one's hand, may one place it inside another vessel and immerse it?
Answer: a. We learned in maseches Mikvaos1: 'A bucket that is full of vessels and he immersed them — these are tahor. And if he did not immerse ( =and if he does not need to immerse the bucket, since it is already tahor) the waters are not joined until they are joined by the measure of a shefoferes hanod'.
That is to say, the Mishnah teaches us that one may immerse vessels inside a vessel; only that if the outer vessel is tahor there must be the measure of a joining of mikvaos — 'a shefoferes hanod' — at the opening of the vessel. But if the outer vessel is tamei, there need not be the measure of a joining at the opening of the vessel.
The reason that with a tamei vessel the tevilah is effective even when there is no opening the size of a shefoferes hanod is explained by the Gemara in maseches Chagigah2: 'מיגו דסלקא טבילה לכוליה גופיה דמנא - סלקא להו נמי לכלים דאית ביה'. (=Since the tevilah is effective for the outer vessel, the tevilah is effective also for the vessels that are inside the vessel).
The Rambam3 wrote that this law — that since the tevilah counted for the outer vessel it counted for the inner one — applies only when the opening of the vessel faces upward; but when the opening of the vessel is to the side, the tevilah did not count for the vessels inside.
b. In practice the Mechaber wrote4: A tamei vessel into which he placed other vessels and immersed the vessel — the tevilah counted for them even though the mouth of the vessel is very narrow, for the water enters it; and since the tevilah counted for the large vessel, the tevilah counted for the vessels inside it. And if he tilted it on its side and immersed it, the tevilah did not count for them unless its mouth is as wide as a shefoferes hanod. And likewise if the vessel was tahor and he placed tamei vessels inside it and immersed them, the tevilah did not count for them unless its mouth is as wide as a shefoferes hanod'.
[Although the words of the Mechaber were derived from the Mishnah, which dealt with the tevilah of vessels from tumah to taharah, the poskim wrote5 that the law of immersing new vessels acquired from a non-Jew is the same as the law of immersing vessels from tumah].
Regarding the law that when the outer vessel also requires tevilah there is no need for the opening of the vessel to have the measure of a 'shefoferes hanod', several of the Acharonim wrote6 that all this is with vessels that are equal in the level of their obligation — for example, that both are of metal and their obligation is mid'Oraisa. But in a case where the outer vessel is glass, whose obligation is only mid'Rabbanan, and the inner vessel is of iron, whose obligation is mid'Oraisa, the tevilah of the glass vessel will not be effective for the metal vessel; and therefore in such a situation the opening of the glass vessel must be like a shefoferes hanod.
c. The Rema wrote7: 'It is permitted to immerse a vessel inside a vessel if the mouth of the outer one is like a shefoferes hanod; and he should take care that the inner vessel be loose within the outer vessel. Therefore he should not stick knives into a bucket and immerse them, for the tevilah will not count for their tips. And likewise, if the inner vessel is heavy and rests inside the outer one, the tevilah will not count for it in the place where it rests'.
And the Shach noted8: 'Specifically vessels that were filled beforehand, for since it is full it presses upon its walls and interposes; but with an empty vessel there is no concern, for it is impossible that water should not come there. Only he should take care not to set many vessels in a vessel to immerse them together, even if they are empty, unless they do not sit one on top of another, like a vessel standing on its base or on its mouth. But to place them one next to another in a bucket, even many vessels together, is permitted l'chatchilah even if they fall one on top of another in the well, and there is no concern, since as they roll here and there the water touches the surface of all of them. Until here'.
We thus learn in practice that one may immerse a vessel inside a vessel, but one must make sure 1) that the inner vessel stands loosely within the outer vessel — therefore there should not be a vessel on top of a vessel but rather beside a vessel — or that he shake the vessels in a manner that they move from their place, and thus the water will certainly reach every place. 2) that the opening of the vessel is the measure of 'a shefoferes hanod' (unless the outer vessel also requires tevilah at the level of the inner vessel, and its opening faces upward)
d. What is the measure of a shefoferes hanod? The Mechaber wrote9: 'Like a shefoferes hanod, which is the size of the first two of the four fingers of the palm of the hand, revolving in the space of the hole with room to spare, whether it is square or round'. And the Gaon R' Chaim Naeh wrote10: 'The measure of a hole like a shefoferes hanod: l'chatchilah one should be stringent that it be a round hole 48 mm wide, and it should not be less than 38 mm'.
Notes:
1 Ch. 6 mishnah 2 ↩
2 22a ↩
3 Hilchos Mikvaos ch. 3 halacha 26. And see the explanation in the Shach siman 201 s"k 28 ↩
4 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 201 se'if 9 ↩
5 Beis Hillel siman 202 s"k 1. Shach siman 202 s"k 4. Aruch HaShulchan siman 201 se'if 82. Tevilas Keilim ch. 10 din 3 ↩
6 Lechem V'Simlah siman 201 s"k 54. Sefer Tevilas Keilim ch. 10 din 3. And see Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 10 note 92 ↩
7 YD siman 202 se'if 6 in the hagah ↩
8 S"k 6 in the name of Issur V'Heter klal 58 din 97 ↩
9 YD siman 201 se'if 40 ↩
10 Shiur Mikveh p. 163 ↩
[26] (Halacha 204)
Ways of holding the vessel at the time of the tevilah (3)
We learned in the previous halacha that one may immerse a vessel inside a vessel when there is a joining of the measure of a shefoferes hanod.
Question: What is the halacha regarding tevilah in a basket and the like?
Answer: The Mishnah in maseches Mikvaos1 says: 'If it was a sack or a large basket, one may immerse in them just as they are, since the waters are joined'.
And the Rambam wrote in his Peirush HaMishnayos there: 'They said, one may immerse in them just as they are — meaning that we do not require that the basket have a hole like a shefoferes hanod, since the water in it is joined with the water in the mikveh by reason of the permeability of its weave and the size of the holes through which the water enters, and their multitude'.
And in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon there he wrote: A sack or a large basket — they do not require a hole like a shefoferes hanod. And that which we say in perek Chomer BaKodesh2, that a basket and a wicker crate that one filled with vessels and immersed are tahor even for kodesh, and we do not decree lest he immerse needles and small pipes in a vessel whose mouth is not like a shefoferes hanod, because of a basket and a wicker crate whose mouth is not like a shefoferes hanod — that is not because we require that the waters be joined by way of its mouth; rather, even if they are joined only by way of the holes within it, the water inside it is nullified relative to the water of the mikveh, since it is full of holes and does not hold water at all. And so it is proven afterwards, where it distinguishes between a basket and a wicker crate that one filled with vessels and a mikveh that one divided with a basket and a wicker crate. Learn from this that it speaks of a case where they are joined by way of the holes — [in which case] this water is entirely nullified; and when one divided it, it becomes like two mikvaos. And for chullin, where we do not decree, it would be permitted to immerse in a sack and a large basket even if its mouth is not like a shefoferes hanod; and these are not like other vessels, concerning which we learned above in the fourth perek that one who places vessels under a spout invalidates the mikveh — for regarding these, their water is not considered as drawn water'.
And in practice the Rema wrote3: 'And it is permitted to immerse vessels in a basket or in a sack, for since it does not hold water it is even better than one perforated like a shefoferes hanod'.
Now, in Shu"t Chacham Tzvi4 he disagreed with the words of the Mechaber and the Rema later in the siman5 with respect to the laws of joining a mikveh by means of something that has small holes, which together amount to the measure of a shefoferes hanod; and in the course of his words he wrote: 'I say that it is specifically a sack and a large basket — which is also a type of sack, like the words of the Tosfos Yom Tov and not like the words of the Rav Bartenura — which are things that have no permanence or standing in the water, that we do not require a shefoferes hanod. But a basket and a wicker crate, which are things that stand in the water, even though they have countless fine holes, we require a shefoferes hanod in one place... A basket and a wicker crate are not comparable to a sack and a large basket, for a sack and a large basket, which are of linen and wool, the water permeates and passes through not only by way of the holes of the sack but even by way of the threads of the weave itself as well. Therefore it teaches concerning them that one may immerse in them just as they are, and gives no measure at all for them, for they have no need of a joining like a shefoferes hanod, since they themselves do not interpose at all before the water — to the exclusion of a basket of wicker, for the wicker necessarily interposes before the water, and therefore we require in their mouth a shefoferes hanod'.
That is to say, he distinguishes between a sack and a basket — in the former, the water permeates even through the thread and the material of the vessel.
And there is one who was concerned6 for these words of the Chacham Tzvi, and wrote that when a person immerses inside a plastic basket he should make sure that there is a hole like a shefoferes hanod, or that he insert the top of the basket so that there will be a joining from above at the open place.
But in practice many have written7 that the stringency of the Chacham Tzvi is primarily with respect to the joining of mikvaos regarding tevilah, and the poskim were concerned for it specifically regarding the tevilah of a niddah, which involves kares — and not regarding tevilas keilim; and particularly since it may be said that the Chacham Tzvi too agrees with the words of Rabbeinu Shimshon mentioned above, as appears from the continuation of his words.
In practice one may immerse vessels in a basket that has holes, or in a sack, even if there is no hole of the measure of a shefoferes hanod. But as was brought in the previous halacha, when immersing many vessels one must make sure that the water reaches every vessel, by shaking them and the like.
Notes:
1 Ch. 6 mishnah 5 ↩
2 22a ↩
3 Shulchan Aruch YD siman 201 se'if 9 in the hagah ↩
4 Siman 40 ↩
5 Se'if 52 ↩
6 See Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 10 and note 95 ↩
7 See Darkei Teshuvah siman 201 s"k 52 and s"k 75. Shu"t Shevet HaLevi vol. 8 siman 205. And the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos there notes 94 and 95 ↩
[27] (Halacha 205)
Question: What is the correct way of immersing bottles?
Answer: The Mishnah in Maseches Mikvaos1 ch. 10 mishnah 1 says: 'A vessel that one immersed through its mouth is as though it was not immersed .. a vessel that is narrow on this side and on that side and wide in the middle is not tahor until he tilts it on its side'.
And the Rambam wrote in his Peirush HaMishnayos there: 'And "immersed it through its mouth" means that he puts the mouth of the vessel downwards upon the surface of the water and its bottom upwards, so that the water does not enter into the whole of the vessel, because the air remains trapped within it and pushes the water away'. And so too wrote Rabbeinu Shimshon in his peirush there: 'because any vessel which, at the beginning of its entry into the water, he inverts upon its mouth - the water never enters into it, even if he brings all of it in'.
And in Sefer Issur V'Heter HaAruch2 he wrote: 'And he further wrote there in the Mordechai, the last perek of Avodah Zarah, in the name of the Mahara"m, that so too it is permitted to immerse metal flasks and glass vessels whose mouth is very narrow, by first filling it with drawn water, for it then mixes properly with the water of the mikveh by way of hashakah, and it is not necessary that the width of the hole be like a shefoferes hanod … thus far his words. However, one must fill it until there remains no place inside the vessel within that does not touch the water, for it was taught in perek 8 of Maseches Mikvaos: a vessel that one immersed through its mouth is as though it was not immersed, since the water cannot enter its bottom within, and even if he brings all of it into the water; and even the hollow of the handle must be full if it is open'.
The Mechaber3 wrote all of this l'halacha, and this is his language: 'A vessel whose mouth he turned downwards and brought into the water - if its mouth is somewhat narrow and he did not turn its mouth upwards, the tevilah was not valid for it, since the water will not reach its bottom even if he brings all of it into the water. A vessel that is narrow on this side and on that side and wide in the middle - the water does not come to it on every side until he tilts it on its side. Any vessel whose mouth is narrow (narrower than a shefoferes hanod) must be left in the water until it fills, or he should fill it before he brings it into the mikveh'.
If so, in practice one who immerses a bottle must make certain that the water reaches the entire surface of the vessel, or fill it with water beforehand and immerse it in that way.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the din with holes inside a vessel, such as when immersing a kettle - must one wait until the water seeps into all the inner parts?
Answer: We learned in the Tosefta4: 'A sickle whose handle broke - from the misteh [=from the rim of the vessel] and inwards it does not interpose, because it is like beis hasesarim'.
And Rabbeinu Shimshon and the Rosh5 wrote that with tevilas keilim too there is no need for the water to enter beis hasesarim, and moreover, that there is not even a need that it be fit for the water to come to the places of beis hasesarim6.
And so too the Mechaber7 ruled: 'A sickle whose handle broke, from the rim and inwards it does not interpose, because it is like beis hasesarim'.
And on the basis of this the poskim8 wrote that there is no need to wait for the water to enter into those holes that are in the vessel9.
In practice, one who immerses a vessel that has holes in it whose din is that of beis hasesarim need not wait for the water to enter there.
Notes:
1 Ch. 10 mishnah 1 ↩
2 Sha'ar 58 siman 95 - 96 ↩
3 YD siman 202 se'ifim 6 - 8 ↩
4 Mikvaos ch. 6 halacha 21 ↩
5 Mikvaos ch. 10 mishnah 5 ↩
6 But on this there are poskim who disagreed; see the references in Encyclopedia Talmudis vol. 17, Chatzitzah note 138, and see also the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos note 439 ↩
7 YD siman 202 se'if 5. And see the Taz s"k 9. Shu"t Igros Moshe YD vol. 1 siman 57 ↩
8 Chelkas Yaakov YD siman 43, and the Minchas Yitzchak vol. 3 siman 77 agreed with him ↩
9 And according to the words of Rabbeinu Shimshon, in principle one may even hold his finger there loosely so that it should not be fit for much water to enter there ↩
[28] (Halacha 206)
In the previous halachos we learned the various manners in which vessels are immersed in the mikveh.
Question: When the mikveh is deep, or when one is unable to immerse in the manners that were brought, what else can be done?
Answer: The Issur V'Heter HaAruch1 wrote: 'He should tie them with a string or the like, in a loose manner'.
And the Shach2 brought it: 'He should not stick in knives etc. Rather he should tie them with a string or the like, in a loose manner, Issur V'Heter klal 58 din 97'. And so too he wrote in Kitzur Shulchan Aruch3: 'And if they immerse by tying the vessel with a rope, such as when they immerse in a well, they must take care that the knot be loose, so that the water can come to every place of the vessel'.
This din, that one must tie it loosely, applies also where he ties the string only to the handle of the vessel, since with the handle too there may not be a chatzitzah4 - as will be explained below.
★ ★ ★
Question: Must one immerse the handles of vessels as well?
Answer: The Mordechai5 wrote: 'R' Shmuel of Bonburk asked Rabbeinu Simcha: let our teacher instruct us whether tevilas keilim nowadays is like the tevilah of the ancients, which raises from tumah to taharah, and whether one must immerse the handles of vessels, however long they are. And he answered that certainly one must immerse them, for what difference is there to me between its handles and the place of their use, since the matter does not depend on the discharge of issur, for even new vessels require tevilah'.
And so too the Mechaber6 ruled: 'One must immerse the handles of the vessel'.
★ ★ ★
Question: Is there an obligation of tevilah for the handle of a vessel even when the handle is made of wood?
Answer: The Darkei Teshuvah7 wrote: 'It is written in Kuntres Tevilas Taharah (which is Kuntres Imros Tehoros by the Gaon, author of Daas Kedoshim of Butchatch) that whatever extends from the vessel, such as a handle or a grip, even if it is of wood or the like, requires tevilah, and the water of the mikveh must surround it at the time of the tevilah, and it must be clean on account of chatzitzah, just like the body of the vessel, see there'. And so the poskim held in practice8.
Therefore, in practice, with a vessel of metal or glass whose handles are made of wood, one must bring the entire handle of the vessel too into the mikveh, and make certain that he is not holding it tightly, or use the other manners that are effective for tevilas keilim.
Notes:
1 Sha'ar 58 siman 100 ↩
2 YD siman 202 s"k 5 ↩
3 Siman 37 se'if 10 ↩
4 Tevilas Keilim ch. 10 din 4 ↩
5 Avodah Zarah remez 859 ↩
6 YD siman 120 se'if 12 ↩
7 Siman 120 s"k 96 ↩
8 As explained in Tevilas Keilim ch. 5 din 5 and note 6. But note Shirei Taharah by the Gaon R' Shlomo Kluger on siman 202 (p. 69), from whose words it appears, with regard to a wooden handle, that the handle of the vessel is not obligated in tevilah on account of the obligation of the vessel. And this still requires study ↩
[29] (Halacha 207)
Question: What is the nusach of the bracha on tevilas keilim?
Answer: The Meiri1 wrote: 'The nusach of this bracha is "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu al tevilas hakeilim", and even if he immersed only one vessel he says "al hakeilim" - such is the form of the bracha'.
But the Mordechai2 wrote: 'The Rashbam wrote that one should recite over them "al hatevilah"; and some recite "al tevilas keilim"; and some recite "al tevilas klei masachos", so that it should not imply other vessels that are not metal (which are not obligated in tevilah)'3. And so too the Issur V'Heter HaAruch4 wrote, to recite "al tevilas klei masachos".
And the Bach5 wrote: 'And in the Mordechai at the end of Avodah Zarah it is written that some recite "al tevilas klei mateches", so that it should not imply other vessels that are not metal, and so ruled the Hagahos Ashiri there6 in the name of the Or Zarua7, and so is the essential ruling, for all the brochos were instituted explicitly: "al netilas lulav", not simply "al netilah"; and so too "l'hadlik ner shel Chanukah", not simply "l'hadlik ner"; and so too all the brochos on all the other mitzvos. And so I have seen the practice, on the authority of elders. And when one immerses glass vessels he must recite "al tevilas klei zechuchis", and with earthenware vessels coated with lead he should recite "al tevilas klei konya"'.
And the Taz8 wondered at him: 'And I was astonished, for if so he should also recite over metal vessels "shel seudah", so that it should not imply even those that are not for a seudah9. Rather, perforce, one need not mention in the bracha all the details of the particulars of the mitzvah. ..Therefore it appears in my humble opinion that one should not deviate from the minhag in this at all. And afterwards I found something greater than this at the end of Issur V'Heter, in a teshuvah, and this is his language: But Mahara"z Ronkil answered that one should not mention the vessel at all, only [al hatevilah] plainly'.
The Pri Chodosh10 too wondered at the Bach: '..And if we were to say that over klei konya or glass vessels one should say a different nusach, as the Bach wrote .. this is not the reason, and we do not find that they instituted two nuschaos of a bracha for one mitzvah. .. And therefore the essential ruling is like the words of the Mechaber. However, bedieved, if he recited "al klei masachos" or "al hatevilah", he has fulfilled his obligation'.
And l'halacha the Tur and the Mechaber11 wrote: 'He recites "al tevilas keli", and if they are two or more, he recites "al tevilas keilim"'. And the Taz and the Pri Chodosh wrote that the essential ruling is like the words of the Mechaber. However, from the words of the Shach it appears that he ruled like the Mordechai and the Bach.
On the other hand, some wrote12: 'And the minhag is to recite "al tevilas keilim" even if he immerses only one vessel, for "al tevilas keilim" means the tevilah of vessels in general. And it appears that what Rabbi Yaakov, the Baal HaTurim, and רב"י wrote - that if it is many vessels he recites "al tevilas keilim", and if it is one vessel he recites "al tevilas hakeli" - they did not say this as an absolute requirement, but rather they are teaching us good counsel; or alternatively, they did not come to say that over one vessel he should not recite "al tevilas keilim", but rather they came to say that if he immerses many vessels he should not say "al tevilas keli"'.
But in Siddur Tehillas Hashem, which the Rebbe printed in the year 5705, it is brought in accordance with the ruling of the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and the Taz13: "When one immerses new vessels he recites: Boruch atah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha'olam asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu al tevilas keli. (And when they are many he says tevilas keilim).
The poskim wrote14 that even when one immerses a doubtful vessel together with a certain vessel, he recites in the plural, "al tevilas keilim".
And the Pri Chodosh15 wrote: 'Bedieved, if over many vessels he recited "al tevilas keli", and likewise if over one vessel he recited "al tevilas keilim", he has fulfilled his obligation, since it refers to vessels in general'.
If so, in practice our minhag is as he ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, that with one vessel one says "tevilas keli", and when it is several vessels one says "tevilas keilim".
Notes:
1 Beis HaBechirah, Avodah Zarah 75b ↩
2 End of Avodah Zarah siman 859 (there are various versions in this; see the Beis Yosef and the notes in the Machon Yerushalayim edition) ↩
3 In Chidushei Chasam Sofer YD siman 120 se'if 3 it is written: 'And one of the talmidim said the reason is because there is also the tevilah of tamei vessels, therefore one must mention it thus - meaning that he recites the bracha on that mitzvah which is unique to metal vessels - and he directed himself well, not like the Taz [s"k 5]' ↩
4 Sha'ar 58 siman 103 ↩
5 YD siman 120 ↩
6 Siman 35 ↩
7 Piskei Avodah Zarah siman 290 ↩
8 S"k 5 ↩
9 And the Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef s"k 8, answered this: 'This is not a question in my view, for one specifies only the substance of the vessel, of what it is, but not what the vessel is for' ↩
10 S"k 10 ↩
11 YD siman 120 se'if 3 ↩
12 Knesses HaGedolah, Hagahos Beis Yosef YD siman 120 s"k 8. And so too wrote the Aruch HaShulchan s"k 23, and so it appears from the wording of other Rishonim, referenced in Tevilas Keilim p. 170 ↩
13 The page of brochos does not appear in the original siddur of the Alter Rebbe (nor in Torah Or); rather it is a copy from the siddur 'Seder HaAvodah' p. 54, which was the basis for the edition of Siddur Tehillas Hashem published by the Rebbe. And in the other brochos changes were made so that it should accord with our minhag, such as with hafroshas challah, but with the bracha of tevilas keilim the matter remained as it was, and it stands to reason that this is because such is our minhag ↩
14 Pri Chodosh there s"k 27. Pri Megadim OC, Mishbetzos Zahav siman 323 s"k 6 ↩
15 There s"k 11 ↩
[30] (Halacha 208)
Question: When is the time for the bracha?
Answer: Our Chachomim stated a great rule1 that with birchos hamitzvos, the mitzvah must be 'over l'asiyasan' - that is, that first he recites the bracha and immediately afterwards performs the mitzvah; but after the fulfilment of the mitzvah he cannot recite the bracha. And in the language of the Alter Rebbe2, regarding bedikas chometz: 'And after he has finished performing it, how can he recite "v'tzivanu" to perform such-and-such a mitzvah, when he is doing nothing at all, since he has already done it'.
Regarding tevilas keilim, the Or Zarua3 wrote: 'Rabbeinu Shmuel zt"l wrote .. and after the tevilah he recites over them "al hatevilah", m"r .. This, that he explained that one recites the bracha after the tevilah - we do not practice so; rather, before the tevilah he recites "al tevilas klei masachos", and he should not say "keilim" plainly, for then it would imply even other vessels that are not metal vessels. And that which is said in the first perek of Pesachim, "granted, tevilah, because the man is not yet fit" - that was explained by Rav Hai Gaon zt"l and Rabbeinu Chananel zt"l and Rabbeinu Tam zt"l as referring specifically to the tevilah of a ger, for we hold that one who was circumcised but did not immerse is as though he was not circumcised. And how could he say "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu" while he is still a non-Jew; therefore he recites the bracha after the tevilah, as it was taught: he immersed and came up, he says "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu al hatevilah". But a Yisroel who is a baal keri - indeed he too recites the bracha and then immerses, as it says in perek Ad Kamah: a niddah separates challah for herself and recites the bracha. And all the more so when one immerses the vessel, that he should recite the bracha over l'asiyaso. And so is the halacha'.
And so too the Ravyah4 wrote: 'One who immerses vessels recites the bracha over them over l'asiyasan'.
Therefore, in practice, he should first recite the bracha and then immediately afterwards immerse the vessels.
★ ★ ★
Question: Must one stand at the time of the bracha?
Answer: The Magen Avraham5 wrote, regarding what is ruled in the Shulchan Aruch, that the bracha on tzitzis must be recited standing: 'And this requires study, for in Yoreh Deah, the beginning of siman 328, it is implied that it is permitted to recite the bracha sitting, and it is a complete mishnah? And one may answer that hafroshas challah is not so much of a mitzvah, since he does it only to prepare his food, similar to shechitah, as it appears to me'.
And although the Pischei Teshuvah6 wrote: 'And see the Magen Avraham .. who wrote that hafroshas challah is not so much of a mitzvah, since he does it only to prepare his food, and therefore it is permitted to recite the bracha sitting, see there. According to this, even if she is dressed in clothing she may recite the bracha sitting. And see there in the sefer Yeshuos Yaakov by the Gaon, my relative, the Av Beis Din of Lvov נר"ו, who rejected this and distinguishes that wherever it is possible to do it standing, he may not do it sitting'.
But in practice the ruling of the Alter Rebbe7 is like the words of the Magen Avraham, and this is his language: 'All birchos hamitzvos must be recited standing, except for the bracha of shechitah and of hafroshas challah, which are not so much of a mitzvah, since he does it only to prepare his food. But as for the performance of the mitzvos themselves, there are some of them that need not be done standing and there are some of them that must be, as each and every one will be explained in its place, b'ezras Hashem'.
And the poskim wrote8 that the din of tevilas keilim is like shechitah and hafroshas challah, which are only to prepare the vessel, and therefore according to the Magen Avraham and the Alter Rebbe he may recite the bracha sitting.
Question: What is the din when one forgot to recite the bracha?
Answer: As it is with the other birchos hamitzvos, the bracha is not m'akev, and even when he immersed without a bracha, the tevilah was valid for the vessel9.
Question: May he recite the bracha after the tevilah?
Answer: The Pri Megadim10 wrote: 'And on a weekday, if he immersed the vessel and did not recite the bracha before the tevilah, it requires study whether he should recite the bracha immediately after the tevilah'.
And some wrote11, regarding shechitah, that within toch k'dei dibur he may recite the bracha; but many disagreed with this and held that one should not recite the bracha even within toch k'dei dibur12. Therefore, in practice, and because of safek brochos, he should not recite the bracha (and especially with tevilas keilim, where even if it fell in without intention the tevilah was valid for him).
If so, in practice, when he did not recite the bracha he cannot recite it after the tevilah, but the tevilah is valid.
Notes:
1 Pesachim 7b ↩
2 OC siman 432 se'if 5 ↩
3 Vol. 4, Piskei Avodah Zarah siman 289 - 290 ↩
4 Vol. 2 - Maseches Pesachim siman 464 ↩
5 Siman 8 s"k 2 ↩
6 Pischei Teshuvah YD siman 328 s"k 2 ↩
7 Siman 8 se'if 3 ↩
8 See Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 13 note 121. Mikveh Keilim ch. 16 din 6 ↩
9 And see also in Issur V'Heter, Sha'ar 58 siman 82, regarding tevilas keilim: 'The brochos are not m'akev ↩
10 OC, Eshel Avraham siman 323 s"k 13 ↩
11 See the Pri Chodosh siman 19, end of s"k 3, and Darkei Teshuvah s"k 7 ↩
12 Simlah Chadashah siman 19, 1 ↩
[31] (Halacha 209)
Holding at the time of the bracha
Question: At the time of the bracha, must one hold the vessel?
Answer: The Rosh1 wrote, regarding the bracha on the lulav: 'It would appear that he should recite the bracha over it before he takes it in his hand; but this is not reasonable, for how can he recite the bracha over it while it is still lying in a vessel? For we say in perek HaKometz Rabbah (daf 35b): tefillin, from when does one recite the bracha over them - from the time of placing until the time of tying; for whenever the mitzvah is not ready in his hand to be performed, it is not reasonable that he should recite the bracha'.
And the Alter Rebbe2 wrote regarding tefillin: 'Because one must bring the bracha close to the performance of the mitzvah, and join them one to the other as much as is possible'.
On the basis of this, with tevilas keilim too one must hold the vessel in his hand at the time of the bracha, in order to join the bracha to the tevilah.
★ ★ ★
Question: Does it make a difference in which hand one must hold the vessel?
Answer: The Ravyah3 wrote: 'He holds the wine in his right hand and the oil in his left, and recites the bracha over the wine and then recites the bracha over the oil. And from this we learn that anything of a bracha and of a mitzvah, it is fitting that he hold it in the right hand'. And the Mordechai4 brought it: 'The Ravyah wrote, and from this we learn that with any bracha of a matter of a mitzvah, it is fitting that he hold it in the right hand'.
And so too the Mechaber5 wrote: 'Anything over which one recites a bracha, to eat it or to smell it, he must hold it in his right hand while he recites the bracha'. And the Ateres Tzvi6 explained: 'So that he should direct his heart that he is reciting the bracha over this fruit, in his right hand, for the right is the more important'.
And so the Alter Rebbe7 ruled in practice: 'Anything over which one recites a bracha, to eat it or to smell it or to perform a mitzvah with it, he must hold in his right hand while he recites the bracha'.
And on the basis of this it is brought in several of the sefarim of the Acharonim8 that when one immerses vessels too, he should hold the vessel in his right hand when he says the bracha9.
★ ★ ★
Question: What is the din with a left-handed person?
Answer: Now, with regard to birchos hamitzvos, the Mechaber and the Rema10 differ as to what a left-handed person should do: according to the Mechaber he must take the lulav in his right hand like everyone else, but according to the Rema he must take it in his left, which is the more important one for him, and so the Alter Rebbe11 decided.
If so, the same din applies here, that a left-handed person should hold the vessel in his left hand (the hand with which he writes) at the time of the bracha.
Notes:
1 Sukkah ch. 3 siman 33 ↩
2 Siman 25 se'if 17 ↩
3 Brochos siman 120 ↩
4 Brochos remez 149 ↩
5 OC siman 206 se'if 4 ↩
6 S"k 2 ↩
7 There se'if 8 ↩
8 See Tevilas Keilim ch. 9 din 12. Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 13, and more ↩
9 Seemingly there is much room to distinguish between what is brought in siman 206, where it is a case in which he recites the bracha over the thing he is holding, whereas here the mitzvah is the act of the tevilah, and this still requires study; and see Minchas Pitim siman 206 se'if 4. But in any case one should hold it, as above, so that it be over l'asiyasan ↩
10 OC siman 651 se'if 3 ↩
11 There se'if 14 ↩
[32] (Halacha 210)
Question: A person who recited the bracha on tevilas kelim and interrupted with speech between the bracha and the immersion?
Answer: Regarding an interruption between the bracha and the performance of the mitzvah, the Alter Rebbe wrote1: 'It is forbidden to interrupt with any speech between the bracha and the beginning of the search, just as it is forbidden to interrupt in all the other mitzvos between the bracha and the beginning of the performance of the mitzvos. And l'chatchilah he should be careful not to speak in between at all, even about matters of the needs of the search, unless it is a matter in which he cannot begin to search if he does not speak. But if he transgressed and spoke in between about the needs of the search, he need not recite the bracha again, even if it was possible to search without that speech. But if he spoke in between speech that is not about the matter of the search at all, he must recite the bracha again'.
And in a case where he must recite the bracha again, the Alter Rebbe wrote2 (siman 206 se'if 13; Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 9 halacha 10): 'And in every place where he must recite the bracha again and his first bracha is levatalah, he must say after it Boruch shem kevod malchuso l'olam vo'ed; and so too anyone who mentions the Name of Heaven in vain'3.
Therefore in practice: 1) L'chatchilah one should take care not to speak at all between the bracha and the immersion, even about matters of the immersion. 2) If he transgressed and spoke words unconnected to the immersion, he must recite the bracha again — but he should first say Boruch shem kevod malchuso l'olam vo'ed. 3) However, if he spoke only about matters connected to the immersion, he does not recite the bracha again
★ ★ ★
Question: When one immerses several vessels one after another, may he interrupt between one vessel and the next?
Answer: This din is learned from the laws of tzitzis, which is a mitzvah comparable to tevilas kelim with regard to an interruption; and so the Alter Rebbe writes in Hilchos Tzitzis4: 'If he has several four-cornered garments, all of them are obligated in tzitzis, even if he wears them all at once, for it is said על כנפי בגדיהם — many garments are implied.
And if he wears them all one after another without an interruption of speech in between, and his intent from the outset at the time of the bracha was to wear them all immediately, he recites only one bracha for all of them — even if he removed the first before he wore the second.
But if he interrupted between them with speech or with other matters, he must recite a bracha on each and every one.
And this is specifically where he interrupted for something not needed for the wearing; but for the need of the wearing — such as if he said 'give me the garment' — he need not recite a bracha.
And likewise, if his intent from the outset at the time of the bracha was not to wear them all immediately, then even though he changed his mind afterwards and wore them all one after another, nevertheless, since his intent was not so from the outset, it is like one who interrupts, and he must recite a bracha on all that he changed his mind about after he finished wearing the garments he had in mind at the time of the bracha.
But if they brought him further garments to wear while there still lay before him some of those garments he had in mind at the time of the bracha, and he had not yet worn them at the time he changed his mind to wear also these garments they brought him now — then he does not recite the bracha again on these garments they brought him now, since he has not yet finished wearing the first garments over which he already recited the bracha. This is similar to [one] who has not finished his meal and they brought him more to eat, that he need not recite the bracha again'.
Therefore in practice: 1) One who immerses several vessels recites one bracha for all of them. 2) L'chatchilah he should not speak until he finishes immersing all of them5. 3) If he interrupted with speech connected to the performance of the mitzvah, he does not recite the bracha again. 4) If he interrupted with speech not about matters of the immersion, he must recite the bracha again. 5) If he recited the bracha in order to immerse several vessels and has now decided to add and immerse several more vessels: if there still lie before him some of the first vessels whose immersion he has not finished, he does not recite a bracha on the additional vessels. 6) But if he has already finished immersing them, he recites the bracha again on the new ones.
Notes:
1 siman 432 se'if 6 ↩
2 siman 206 se'if 13; Seder Birchos HaNehenin ch. 9 halacha 10 ↩
3 However, see what the poskim discussed regarding this (see the sources cited in Piskei Teshuvos siman 206 os 24; Ketzos HaShulchan vol. 1 p. 82, 2; and this is not the place to elaborate) — whether saying Boruch shem kevod malchuso l'olam vo'ed helps in a case where an interruption was made between the saying of the bracha levatalah and the saying of the rectification of Boruch shem kevod malchuso l'olam vo'ed ↩
4 siman 8 se'if 21 ↩
5 As explained in Tosafos Menachos 36a d"h סח, brought in Kuntres Acharon to siman 249 s"k 4. And see what he elaborated on this in Simlah Chadashah with Bigdei Malchus, Iyunim siman 26 ↩
[33] (Halacha 211)
Question: Is it permitted to recite the bracha on tevilas keilim at a mikveh that is located inside a building?
Answer: The Gemara in Maseches Shabbos1 says: 'One who enters the bathhouse: (1) A place where people stand clothed - there is there Scripture and tefillah, and it goes without saying the exchange of greetings, and he puts on tefillin, and it goes without saying that he does not remove them. (2) A place where people stand naked and clothed - there is there the exchange of greetings, but there is not there Scripture and tefillah, and he does not remove tefillin, but he does not put them on l'chatchilah. (3) A place where people stand naked - there is not there the exchange of greetings, and it goes without saying Scripture and tefillah, and he removes tefillin, and it goes without saying that he does not put them on'.
And the Rashba2 wrote: 'And that which they were accustomed to immerse vessels and to recite the bracha in the beis hatevilah, even though in the bathhouse it is forbidden to say "shalom" - it is because, since they are cold waters, there is no filth there, which is not the case in a bathhouse of hot water'.
And the Mechaber3 wrote: 'In the outer room, where all who stand there are clothed, it is permitted; and in the middle one, where some of those standing there are clothed and some are naked, there is there the exchange of greetings but not Krias Shema and tefillah; and in the inner one, where they all stand there naked, even the exchange of greetings is forbidden'.
And the Taz4 wrote: 'In the Kesef Mishneh it is written, and this is his language: R' Manoach wrote, and some say that since the prohibition of the bathhouse is because they stand there naked, the same din applies to those mikvaos in which the women immerse, that it is forbidden to recite a bracha or to read within it; and this is not reasonable, for the essential prohibition of the bathhouse is only on account of the prohibition of the filth and the vapour that is in it, through its being used with hot water. But those mikvaos, whose water is cold, have no filth, and it is permitted. And this requires study, for with regard to mezuzah the beis hatevilah is like the bathhouse. Thus far his words.
And it is difficult for me from what [the Tur] wrote regarding the bracha of the tevilah in Yoreh Deah siman 200, that the Rosh wrote: when she removes her garments, while she stands in her shift she should recite the bracha, and then remove her shift and immerse. Thus far his words. It implies that it is possible to recite the bracha in the beis hatevilah.
And it appears to say that this beis hatevilah has literally the din of the middle room of the bathhouse, where some of them are naked etc., and l'chatchilah one should not recite any bracha there; only the bracha of the tevilah is unavoidable there, since it pertains to the tevilah, and it is like the middle one of the bathhouse, where one does not remove the tefillin if he has already put them on, as is written above, siman 45. So too here it is like bedieved, since it is impossible in another manner. But in the water all brochos are permitted, as is written with regard to Krias Shema in siman 74, that it is permitted with murky water, or with clear water if his heart is not within the water'.
If so, the Taz learns that the tevilah room is like the middle room5, and only at a time of need may one recite a bracha. And in the plain meaning of his words, this is so even when the mikveh is not cold6.
And seemingly one may say that tevilas keilim too is considered like bedieved, and therefore according to this view one may recite the bracha.
However the Alter Rebbe7 ruled like Rabbeinu Manoach, and this is his language: 'In the bathhouse: in the outer room, where all who stand in it are clothed, it is permitted to put tefillin on his head and his arm there l'chatchilah; and in the middle room, where some people stand there clothed and some of them naked, it is forbidden to put on tefillin there l'chatchilah, even at a time when there is no naked person there, but if they were on his head he need not remove them when he enters there; and in the inner room, where all who stand in it are naked, even if they were on his head he must remove them when he enters there, even at a time when there is no person there. In what case is this said? In a bathhouse, whose filth is great from the vapour of the hot water that is used in it. But in a beis hatevilah, even though they stand in it naked, since it is used with cold water there is no filth in it, and it is permitted to enter it with tefillin when there is no naked person there. Therefore one recites the bracha of the tevilah at the mikveh even before he goes down into the water, even though above the water they stand there naked. But if there is a naked person there, it is forbidden to enter into it with tefillin or with other holy writings, for it is forbidden to stand naked before holy writings'.
If so, according to his words it would seem that one may recite the bracha only when the beis hatevilah is used with cold water, in which case there is no filth in it, and not at a mikveh whose water is hot.
But in truth one may say that the essential point in the words of the Alter Rebbe is that everything depends on whether there is filth, which (in the past) was caused and found in the rooms in which there were hot baths, since in the past, in order that there be hot water in a bathhouse, they would boil great cauldrons of water, and much vapour would rise from there and intensify the filth and the dirt of the bathhouse. And therefore the doubt of the Pri Megadim8 is understood, who wrote regarding mikvaos: 'And behold, with a mikveh into which there is hot water that they pour into it, one may say that there is vapour in it, as the Kesef Mishneh wrote in the name of R' Manoach; and one may say that the vapour and the filth are not so great as in a bathhouse'. For with mikvaos in which they heat the water from the outside and the like, there is room to say that this is not considered a place of vapour and filth.
And on the basis of this, all the more so today, when they do not boil water in the mikvaos but rather everything passes through pipes, and they are generally clean - and especially since today, because of the drainage and ventilation systems and the like, the mikvaos are far cleaner - and therefore the mikveh room is not considered a place of filth.
Therefore, in practice, when the room in which the mikveh is located is clean, and it is separate from the washing room, then, when there are no naked people there, one may recite the bracha in that place immediately before tevilas keilim; and if not, he should recite the bracha outside and enter inside immediately and immerse9.
Notes:
1 10a ↩
2 Shu"t vol. 7 siman 418. And similarly it is written in Rabbeinu Manoach, Hilchos Krias Shema ch. 3 halacha 3, brought below in the Taz. And some wrote that the laws of the bathhouse are not on account of the filth and the vapour of the hot water, but rather it is on account of their standing naked. And see Encyclopedia Talmudis, entry Beis HaMerchatz ↩
3 OC siman 84 se'if 1 ↩
4 Siman 84 s"k 2 ↩
5 One may say that it is also on account of the fact that those who are in the water have the din of being covered ↩
6 See Machzik Bracha siman 84 s"k 2, but see Pischei Teshuvah YD siman 200 s"k 3. And further, it requires study whether the intention of the Taz is to say that the essential point depends on the place in which they stand naked, and not on account of the vapour and the filth. And this still requires study ↩
7 Siman 45 se'if 3 ↩
8 OC, Eshel Avraham siman 45 s"k 2 ↩
9 Tevilas Keilim ch. 9 din 13. And see Mishnas HaGer siman 42 ↩
[34] (Halacha 212)
Question: What is the din of vessels that are in partnership between a Jew and a non-Jew - is there an obligation of tevilah in this?
Answer: The Issur V'Heter HaAruch1 wrote: 'If he sold it to him [to a non-Jew] and then took it back from him, even he himself, he must immerse it, and with a bracha. And even if it never came into the hand of the non-Jew, such as where the non-Jew entrusted it to him in his house or in the house of another Jew, for the name of the non-Jew was upon it once. But a Jew and a non-Jew who bought a vessel in partnership - it does not require tevilah, for it certainly does not emerge from any tumah by this tevilah, since the name and the partnership of the non-Jew are still upon it'.
And so too the Rema2 wrote: 'A Jew and a non-Jew who bought a vessel in partnership - it does not require tevilah'.
And the Shach3 wrote on this: 'But if he then bought the non-Jew's share, it requires tevilah4'.
And in Shoresh MiYaakov HaRishon5 he wrote: 'It appears to me, in my humble opinion, that this is simple: that which the Shach wrote, "But if he then bought the non-Jew's share, it requires tevilah" - that is, tevilah with a bracha, for until now the vessel had not gone out from the tumah of the non-Jew to the kedushah of a Jew, but only now, when he bought the non-Jew's share of the partnership; and furthermore, that it has not yet been immersed at all with any tevilah, not even a tevilah of doubt6'.
(However, the Shoel U'Meishiv7 wrote regarding a majority of non-Jews: 'In my humble opinion, since Tosfos wrote that we require it to be like the incident that occurred, that the vessel was of Midian, if so, with a partnership too it is not like the incident that occurred, for it was only of Midian alone; and see Yevamos daf 116b and Shabbos daf 60. And I found in the Pri To'ar siman 120 s"k 12 that his honour alluded that so it is written, and I was gratified. And in any case, l'dina, in my humble opinion it requires tevilah without a bracha, for the reason that the majority is that of non-Jews, since the workers too are non-Jews'. But most of the poskim disagreed with him8).
If so, in practice, a vessel that was in partnership between a Jew and a non-Jew, when the vessel passes entirely into the possession of a Jew, is obligated in tevilah with a bracha.
★ ★ ★
Question: Nowadays, does one recite a bracha on tevilas keilim when one buys vessels from a non-Jewish manufacturer, but his company is traded on the stock exchange - shares - and it is also possible that there are Jewish shareholders?
Answer: Now, the poskim differ regarding shares (as to whether indeed all the shareholders are considered partners (see the elaboration in Shu"t Minchas Yitzchak9, and note also the words of the Rebbe10: 'The Jew who buys the aktzia (- share) is himself the bank, for through this purchase he becomes a partner in the bank').
But in practice the poskim wrote11 that even if shares are not considered actual ownership12, and even if it is possible that there is a minority of shares belonging to Jews, this is no worse than the aforementioned din of a partnership with a non-Jew, which is obligated in tevilah and with a bracha. And especially when the vessel was standing and fit for sale to non-Jews13.
Therefore, in practice, with one who buys a vessel that was manufactured abroad, even when he is in doubt about the manufacturer, the poskim wrote14 that he should immerse it with a bracha (since it separates from the majority), and likewise in a case where Jews too have shares in the company, he must immerse it with a bracha.
Notes:
1 Sha'ar 58 siman 91 ↩
2 YD siman 120 se'if 11 ↩
3 There s"k 26 ↩
4 And see the discussion of this in Tevilas Keilim ch. 2 note 3 ↩
5 Vol. 1 siman 120 os 5; the Darkei Teshuvah s"k 93 referred to it, and see also the Pri Chodosh os 31, and Chidushei Chasam Sofer YD 120 se'if 10. And in Tevilas Keilim ch. 3 note 9 ↩
6 To note the view of the Pri To'ar (s"k 12), that specifically: 'If the non-Jew's share is greater than that of the Jew, it requires tevilah with a bracha; and if it is equal, it requires tevilah without a bracha because of doubt, since it is half and half; and if that of the Jew is the greater, it does not require it does not require tevilah even without a bracha'. However, see what is written in the sefer Tevilas Keilim ch. 2 note 8, that most of the poskim disagreed with him ↩
7 Mahadura Kama vol. 2 siman 73 ↩
8 Pesakim U'Teshuvos siman 120 os 45 note 400. Tevilas Keilim ch. 2 note 4 ↩
9 Vol. 3 siman 1 ↩
10 Reshimos, kuntres 161 ↩
11 See Shu"t Igros Moshe YD vol. 2 siman 39. And the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos os 45 ↩
12 However, see what is written in Shu"t Emek HaTeshuvah vol. 5 siman 67, but his words require very great study, and they are also difficult from the aforementioned Issur V'Heter ↩
13 The Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos (vol. 18, Matos 2, p. 363. And see also the Aruch HaShulchan YD siman 120 se'if 52 onwards) explains that the obligation of tevilah does not depend only on the personal ownership of the non-Jew, but rather the obligation is also on account of the vessel's being fit and ready for a use of issur ↩
14 See Shu"t Yabia Omer vol. 6 - YD siman 12. And the references in Pesakim U'Teshuvos os 46 note 404 ↩
From the 'Shoneh Halacha' project — a daily halacha with reasons and sources
Link to the (silent) group: 'Shoneh Halacha — Chabad Minhogim'
Join the WhatsApp group