Q Is tevilat keilim (immersing in a mikveh of a utensil that was bought from non-Jews) necessary for all utensils that come in direct contact with food? A We cannot, of course, go into all of the factors that cause that something be required to have tevilat keilim, but we will give some guidelines, especially on the point of direct contact, which you refer to. First, we should point out that only keilim (utensils) made of metal or glass need tevila (immersion). An additional point, which is important but beyond our present scope, is that disposable items, even if they temporarily have the same function as classical utensils, are not categorized as keilim and do not require tevila. The mitzva of tevilat keilim is found in the Torah in the context of doing hechsher keilim, removing through heat any taste of any non-kosher food that might be found in the walls of utensils (see Bamidbar 31:21-24). Rabba bar Avuha stated that tevilat keilim applies even to new pots (Avoda Zara 75b), meaning that the immersion is necessary irrespective of whether anything non- kosher is in the walls. Rav Sheshet asked that if that is the case, then perhaps utensils of all sorts should require tevila. The answer given is that the Torah was referring only to klei seuda (literally, utensils of a meal). But what is considered a kli seuda? Rashi (ad loc.) says that since the Torah describes utensils that were used with heat from a flame, it must be talking about utensils that are involved in a meal (apparently, including its preparation). The Pri Chadash (YD 120:1) asks that there are utensils that are used in connection with heat but are unrelated to food. Therefore, he prefers the Rashba's explanation, that these p'sukim are dealing with the type of utensil, which belong to the category of those things that may require kashering. If one takes a very narrow view of the Rashba, one can come to the conclusion that the kli (or perhaps even the part of the kli which is made of metal or glass) must come in actual, physical contact with the food. However, poskim understand that we are talking about the category of a utensil, namely, one which is used directly in connection with food, whether or not it comes in actual, physical contact. This understanding of klei seuda contains both elements of leniency and stringency. Does a can opener require tevila? On one hand, if one opens up a can of tuna fish, the can opener almost always touches the food. On the other hand, its job is not, by design, connected to the food but to the can. So presumably, the incidental contact with the food should not make it obligated in tevila. Indeed, the standard p'sak is that it does not require tevila (see Tevilat Keilim (Cohen) 11: 171 and footnote, ad loc.). If, on the flip side, one covers a baking pan with waxed paper, the food is still considered to be baking in the pan, despite the fact that it touches only the paper, and the pan requires tevila (Rav Sh. Z. Orbach, quoted in T.K., 1: (7)). This is not to say that direct contact between the food and the utensil is not important, but just that it depends on the nature and extent of the direct contact. For example, if a pot made of a substance that does not require tevila is coated in a significant way (not just for beautification) by a substance that does require tevila, then position of the coating could make a difference. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 120:1) implies that only when the obligated substance is on the inside do we require tevila (the Rama may argue, see commentators). Also, if the utensil in question is separated from the food by another kli, then one does not need tevila. Thus, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid. 120:4) says that a tri-pod that holds a pot over the flame is exempt from tevila, and the same is true for the modern devices for suspending pots. Ask
the Rabbi Q&A is part of Hemdat Yamim, the weekly parsha sheet published
by Eretz Hemdah. You can read this section or the entire Hemdat Yamim at
www.ou.org or
www.eretzhemdah.org.
And/or you can receive Hemdat Yamim by email weekly, by sending an email
to eretzhem@netvision.net.il
with the message: Join Hemdatya –Please leave the subject blank. Ask the
Vebbe Rebbe is partially funded by the Jewish Agency for Israel R’
Chaim Soloveitchik used to stand out of respect every time his son, R’
Velvel, entered the room. To avoid this, R’ Velvel began entering their
home by climbing through the window. In practice, there are several opinions on the subject of She-he-che-yanu during the Three Weeks and the Nine Days. Some,
as mentioned above, abstain from that bracha during the whole Three Weeks.
This does not include the bracha at a Brit or Pidyon HaBen; not saying it
would “sour” the mitzva, and this must not be done. In other words,
Shulchan Aruch would agree to say the bracha on those occasions, but not
on a new fruit, for example. Others hold that on Shabbat during the Three
Weeks one can say the bracha, but not during the week. And not even on
Shabbat during the Nine Days. Some say yes until Rosh Chodesh Av, even
during the week. The GR"A permits it throughout the Three Weeks, even
during the week and even during the Nine Days. The
concern was later raised that if the daughters of Tzelafchad marry out of
their tribe, the portion that they were to receive would be removed from
the inheritance of Menashe and added to the inheritance of the tribe to
which they joined. Tzelafchad’s daughters were therefore instructed that
they must marry within the tribe, so that their inheritance not pass over
to another tribe. Why?
Half of the tribe of Menashe - the descendants of Machir - received their
inheritance in Ever Hayarden, the east bank of the Jordan River, along
with the tribes of Gad and Reuven. The rest of the tribe received their
portion on the west bank of the Jordan, along with the remainder of the
tribes. It would appear that the daughters of Tzelafchad chose to distance
themselves from their closer relatives and marry their more distant
cousins because in that way they would have a portion in Eretz Yisrael
proper. What a lesson of sacrifice in order to be able to live in the
heart of Eretz Yisrael! - Rabbi Meyer Horowitz , Har Nof , Jerusalem To
help further the work of Aloh Naaleh, tax deductible contributions can be
made to American Friends of AACI attn: Aloh Naaleh, and can be sent to us
at 11 Pinsker St., Jerusalem 92228. More importantly, here is the addendum attached to last week's lead tidbit in the electronic versions of Torah Tidbits (website and email) that didn't make it into the hard copy: Addendum • (The following did not make it into the hard copy; it will probably be there next week): All of the Torah is the prophecy of Moshe Rabeinu. The point made above is that the Bil'am-Balak episode would be totally unknown to us except for its inclusion in the Torah. Of course, the account of Creation also had no witnesses, but we can see G-d's Creation in everything we see. And, aside from "stories", there are the mitzvot that also consitute prophecy. And this also was G-d to Moshe and him to us. But, I hope the point above is well-taken in any event. - PC More... A few people commented negatively on the use of CNN in the title of the Lead Tidbit. CNN has demonstrated itself bias against Israel in its reporting and is in the preverbial dog house as far as many Jews are concerned. Good point. We went for CNN at a TT reader’s suggestion and felt that it fit the point of the piece, but we did not think it through to the bad taste in many people’s mouth that CNN causes. Fox News, perhaps? Vas you dere, Charley? Last week’s lead tidbit made reference to the vaudeville routine (wrongly identified as being from a radio show) between world-class fibber Baron Munchausen and his companion Charley Montague. Earlier this week, we received a call from Charley’s son, thanking us for mentioning his father. The Baron and Charley were two Jewish comedians, Jack Pearl and Ben Bard, who performed in the ‘20s, and later brought their characters to the “silver screen” in the ‘40s. Ben Bard z”l appeared in 27 movies from 1927-46 alongside the likes of Larel and Hardy, the Three Stooges, Jimmy Durante, Peter Lorre, Dennis O’Keefe, Broderick Crawford, Kim Hunter, Loretta Young, Jean Harlowe, Lionel Barrymore, Zasu Pitts, Mary Astor, and Tom Mix. And most importantly, one of Ben Bard’s sons made Aliya. Thank you, Barak, for the call... and the many smiles and warm nostalgic feelings that resulted from surfing IMDB for the above details. SNACK?
Fleishig Day might have been put on hold, but the Israel Center Center now
has two 1NIS vending "candy machines", one with chocolate covered raisins
(dairy) and one with coated "American peanuts” (parve). Watch
for a full discussion of the before and after brachot of “raisinettes”...in
TT soon. Pinchas is said to have acted correctly since according to Jewish Law such a public immoral act with a gentile is deserving of death at the hands of a zealot (Rashi, Bemidbar 25:6). On the other hand, the Jerusalem Talmud recalls an opinion that since Pinchas acted spontaneously he defied judicial procedures and was worthy of excommunication. Which view is correct? The question is deeper than we imagine. For one may ask: "How do we know that Pinchas' deed was animated by a genuine, unadulterated spirit of zeal to advance the glory of G-d? Perhaps he was prompted by a selfish motive, maintaining - while committing murder - that he was doing it for the sake of Heaven?" Hashem, however, evokes Pinchas' descendancy from Aharon whose love of mankind was legendary. He bestows on him a covenant of peace and eternal priesthood. This, notes the Torah Temima, validates Pinchas' authenticity. The Emek Davar, however, sanguinely submits that the covenant is a safeguard against the demoralization that attends such an intemperate deed. This is a sober thought for our times.
Shabbat Shalom, [The Parshat Pinchas Homepage]
|
