Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 22

In the quote from Numbers I mentioned earlier, the rabbis derived from "that which has passed through fire, you shall pass through fire..." the principle is "as it absorbs, so it releases". That means that in the same way a utensil has become non-kosher, it can lose that status. If an oven spit became non-kosher, it can be kashered by passing it through a fire. The Talmud states to make it white-hot (libbun), after which it is again kosher. Some question if "white hot" is actually necessary, or is simply an exaggeration for"very hot". If something became non-kosher through boiling, it is to be kashered either by being placed into a larger pot that is boiling over a fire, or be filled with water, boiling in it until the water washes over the top. (Some place a hot rock into the pot to make it overflow). If something became non-kosher by having a non-Kosher liquid poured over or into it, it is sufficient to simply pour boiling water over it. In either case, the pot (or other utensil) should then be rinsed with cold water. According to some, a utensil which has only had hot liquid poured into it, but was not actually on the fire, needs no kashering at all. In the case of libun, the utensil may be kashered immediately, as all forbidden substances will be burned. In the case of purging in boiling water (hag'alah), it is required to wait at least twenty-four hours before kashering. Technically, it could be done immediately as well, but since we are here dealing with nullifying the non-kosher substances rather than burning them, great care must be taken that there be sufficient water for nullification to occur.   The rinsing afterwards is to wash off the water that has absorbed the non-kosher substances. As we have seen, no utensil remains Biblically unkosher for more than twenty-four hours. Therefore, the kashering is only a formality at that point, and the amounts of water are not a concern. Likewise, the rinsing afterwards in this case is only a custom, and may be dispensed with when there is fear of damaging the utensil. Now, how hot is "hot"? The Talmud uses the term "yad soledet" (the hand recoils) but quickly redefines that as the temperature at which a baby's belly would become scalded. Many authorities play it safe, and suggest that 104 degrees F (40C) is already "hot". However, scientifically, a burn (rather than just reddening of the skin) occurs at 130 F (54.4 C) with prolonged exposure, and at 140 F (60C) instantaneously. Therefore, "hot" is somewhere between 130 and 140 F. (This debate has huge implications also in the laws of Shabbat, but this is not our topic now). Generally, Ashkenazim go by the lower temperature (or close to it), while Sepharadim go by the higher (or close to it). However, there is an alternative (controversial) approach to this topic. Similar to a point I mentioned in my last post. Most rabbis will not change a halachah found in Talmud in favor of an observable scientific fact, while others will. Rabbi Y. Abadi suggests the following: If we were to place a small piece of food in an oven at top heat for half an hour, it will turn to ash. Why should we not assume that the same thing happens with the minuscule amounts of food absorbed in the utensil? Therefore, he allows kashering by placing in an oven at top heat for half an hour! Other than earthenware, (which I shall discuss next time), this can be done for any material that can withstand this amount of heat. The same would be true of normal kashering, or kashering for Passover, with the exception that Sepharadim do not require a one-day waiting period for Passover, as before Passover, the hametz is permissible, not forbidden, and requires a far less stringent kashering process. One may also place a utensil that needs hag'alah into the oven for half an hour. Alternatively,, he says to put a small amount of water into the pot, cover it, and leave it on the fire, until the utensil fills with steam. I do rely on Rabbi Abadi's kashering rules. Most rabbis do not. In my next post, I will discuss the fascinating issue of "tziruf de'ot" (the combining of several minority leniencies to make a "permitted" verdict). Most authorities accept this, but many reject this. It especially plays out in the issue of kashering china.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 21

The status of glass is very interesting. Glass was so rare and expensive that it is no wonder that the Talmud did not list it among the other kasherable items; metal, wood, and stone, with rubber coming in later. Only the richest owned glassware. Most medieval authorities ruled that glass, being made from sand, is a form of earthenware, and extremely porous. Therefore, it is completely unkasherable. This became the ruling of most Ashkenazi rabbis to this day. RAMBAM ruled that it is similar to metal, and could be kashered with boiling water. The situation became more complicated when, in about 900, a book of aggadah and ethics appeared, that was mistakenly attributed to a great second-century Babylonian rabbi. Although it was not focused on halachah, it "threw in" that glass, being smooth (non-porous) is impervious to all kinds of food, and needed no kashering. This became a popular opinion, and was accepted by the laymen in most parts of Europe. However, it was bitterly opposed by virtually all Ashkenazi rabbis. In Sepharadic lands, however, the rabbis almost always DID accept this approach. Why? It is against nearly all major rabbinic opinions? Because we can see that glass is non-porous! If wood is at least kasherable, glass HAS TO be better than that! In a conflict of sources and observable fact, Ashkenazim will usually go for earlier opinion (or custom), Sepharadim for fact. (I will once again express my gratitude to Rav Ovadia Yosef, for allowing me the privilege of becoming Sepharadi.) Syrian Jews, for example, will have only one set of dishes, used for meat, dairy, and Passover; with only a rinse and a little soap in between. (Most other groups will require that separate meat and dairy utensils be used, even if made from glass, as a matter of custom.) Rabbi Dov Lior, the now-retired rav of Kiryat Arba-Hevron, ruled a few years ago that stainless steel is likewise "smooth" and non-porous, and can be used for Passover with merely a cleaning. So far, only a few have adopted this view, as the kashering of metal is both in the Torah and the Talmud, whereas glass is not. Rabbi Lior answers this objection by pointing out that a metal so smooth and perfect, was not the norm in those days. Rabbi Abadi, of whom I spoke in a previous post, even allows glazed china to be used as glass. Others agree in theory, but are concerned that the glaze may be chipped, exposing the absorbent earthenware Sepharadic rabbis view glass variants, like Pyrex as glass. . A similar situation exists with plastic; a modern material. Whereas most rabbis ruled that plastic is no worse than wood or rubber, and is therefore kasherable, Moshe Feinstein was not convinced. Therefore, most (but not all!) American rabbis, out of respect for "Rav Moshe", banned kashering plastic. In Israel, this stringency is virtually unknown. Rav Abadi has recently ruled that plastic and silicone are like glass, and may freely be used for both meat and dairy, as well as for Passover. In my next post, I will discuss how kashering is done, plus the alternative view of Rabbi Abadi.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 20

One of the most misunderstood aspects of Kashrut is the issue of utensils. How can a utensil become non-kosher? How can it be made kosher again? (n.b. the almost universal folklore of burying a utensil overnight has absolutely no basis in halachah. You can take that fork out of the flower pot now.) What types of materials are "kasherable". and which are not? Why? What is the status of glass? Plastic? Is there any difference between ancient materials and modern that may affect the halachic status? Do we need to be concerned about the utensils in a factory? A restaurant? At the home of a non-Jewish friend? (Yes, I have many) Does a dairy plate touching a meat plate make it non-Kosher? I will now begin a few posts on the theory of kosher utensils, then we can go to the practical issues involved in our homes. First of all, where does this concept begin? The origin is the Torah. Moses' final task is to avenge the treachery of the Midianites. The Israelites must fight. G-d commands the fighters to take home the spoils of war. But what to do about the non-kosher utensils? We read in Numbers 31:22-23:
"…only the gold and the silver, the bronze, the iron, the tin and the lead, everything that can stand the fire, you shall pass through the fire, and it shall be clean, but it shall be purified with water for impurity. But whatever cannot stand the fire you shall pass through the water".
Most of this is clear. If a non-kosher utensil has been used over the fire, it must be again put through the fire. According to the Talmud, it must be glowed white-hot, so as to destroy any and all non-kosher food molecules that have been absorbed. If it has been used with non-kosher through boiling, it must again be boiled. The topic of "the water of impurity" has two possible meanings. Some say that any metal utensil acquired from a non-Jew must first be immersed in a mikveh (extended by the rabbis to glass as well), while others interpret it to mean the purification water of the Red Heifer. According to this view, the immersion of utensils is rabbinic only. This was denounced in Christian Scripture: (Mark 7:4):
"None of them will eat anything they buy in the market until it is washed. They also follow a lot of other teachings, such as washing cups, pitchers, and bowls".
The Talmud, however, makes several caveats. Earthenware (clay) is not Kasherable, as it is very porous and absorbent. The non-kosher status of any utensil can only last for twenty-four hours. You will recall the idea that non-kosher food that imparts a bad taste will not make anything non-kosher. How will food taste that has sat for a day inside metal? Nevertheless, a later rabbinic enactment forbade the use of a non-kosher utensil even after twenty-four hours, until kashered, lest we forget and use it within twenty-four hours. However, if it was used after twenty-four hours without kashering, the food will still be kosher! A few prominent rabbis have noted that there is a difference between the utensils then and now. Earthenware was untreated. Today's earthenware is almost like glass. Metal utensils used by the rich were generally very pure. Those of the poor were usually full of impurities,, and even holes! We read until fairly recently how a new metal utensil had to have flour cooked in it, in order to stop up the holes. Questions concerning Passover abound! Ancient utensils retained significant amounts of unwanted food. Modern utensils absorb in the neighborhood of a few parts per million, way below the halachic 1/60th. Some rabbis consider the necessity of kashering to be today only a formality, while some materials (especially glass, and according to some prominent Israeli rabbis, stainless steel) as incapable of any absorption. The glass idea has existed since about the year 900 and is widely, but not universally, accepted. The stainless steel idea only came in a few years ago and has yet to be widely accepted. Also, only heat will cause anything to be absorbed. If your non-Jewish friend placed a cold pork chop on your kosher dairy dish, just rinse it off! How hot is hot, will be discussed in another post. But it will be an issue when we consider dishwashers. If only cold water is used, there is no problem to use them for both meat and milk, or even if a non-kosher utensil was placed inside. If really hot water is used, that would, according to most, mean a different story. But the use of soap, imparting a bad taste, would make this a moot point. This and more will be the topic of my next post.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 19

Another two enactments, whose goal was to limit the chances of intermarriage, were "Bishul Akum" (Idolater's Cooking), and "Pat Akum" (Idolater's Bread). Both of these have extremely strict and extremely lenient interpretations. The implications of these interpretations are also significant in how we approach other issues as well. The enactment against eating food cooked by a non-Jew was always understood to be of a limited nature. It only applied to food fit to be served at the table of a king, only for foods normally eaten with bread, and which are never eaten raw. Some have suggested that kings aren't so fussy today, but I have seen letters of confirmation from both the White House and Buckingham Palace to the effect that absolutely no canned or packaged foods are EVER served. (I'm not sure this is still true today, as former President Trump loves McDonald's) The enactment stipulated that if a Jew had any part in the cooking (even stirring the pot), that is not Bishul Akum, so long as the Jew's action was before the food was fully cooked. One will often see canned foods with a Hareidi Hechsher indicating that it is "Bishul Yisrael" (Jewish cooking), which usually simply means that a Jew adjusted the heat. Authorities differ as to whether canned, frozen or otherwise packaged goods are "fit for the Table of a King". Most Hareidi authorities say that they are, and must be cooked, at least partially, by Jews. Most centrist and Modern Orthodox authorities rule that they are not, and therefore need no special preparation. Moshe Feinstein wrote a responsum stipulating a number of conditions needed for canned goods to not be subject to the rules of Bishul Akum, but he instructed the Kashrut services that there is no concern with the "cooking" (actually, steaming) of canned goods. A great debate exists between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim in this area, with the Sepharadim actually more strict. In most kosher restaurants, both in the U.S. and Israel, the kitchen staff is mostly non-Jewish. Whereas Sepharadim would require that a Jew adjust the stove, or stir the pot, Ashkenazim rely on a minority opinion that it is enough that a Jew lit the pilot light. This view is mentioned in RAMA; the primary Ashkenazic view in the Shulchan Aruch, but he warned to only rely on it in a dire emergency. Sepharadim do not rely on this at all. Askenazim rely on it even in the first instance, contrary to the actual ruling of RAMA. When I lived in Beit El, there was a sign at the diner that sits at the entrance to the community "Strictly Kosher for Ashkenazim, Not Kosher for Sepharadim". There is, however, another possible "out" which I shall come to shortly. The Sanhedrin also forbade baked goods of a non-Jew. As I indicated previously, a decree is only valid if accepted by the people within a year. Many communities accepted this decree fully. Many did not, except for bread baked by a non-Jew in his home. They did, however, partake of baker's bread, as there was no close social contact, and hence no fear of causing intermarriage. There remains a threefold policy to this day. Some authorities forbid all non-Jewish bread. Some forbid only privately baked bread, but will use baker's bread in an emergency. Some consider baker's bread (providing the ingredients are kosher) as completely kosher, even in the first instance. I once saw an online page (part of an online ordination course. I am opposed to these in principle) on the subject, that said that one could be sure that any packaged bread with a hechsher is Pat Yisrael (Jewish bread). I asked my son who works in this field. He had a good laugh. This distinction between commercial and private baking later became the basis for those who allow milk from commercial dairies. Those who rely on non-Jewish cooking in restaurants, often deduce logically that the same rule should apply (since the person one is dealing with is not the one who cooks the food), although, to the best of my knowledge, no actual halachic authority has issued such a ruling. (About five years ago, one "B List" rabbi issued a blanket "heter" (permission) to eat in a vegan restaurant, as, he claims, the prohibition of non-Jewish cooked foods only applies in a festive setting. This view  has no source, and has few sane adherents.) Another theoretical "out" not yet addressed by authorities, is if fish cooked by a non-Jew is forbidden, since today raw fish is commonly consumed in the form of sushi. ("Sushi Grade" is a U.S. advertising term, with no real meaning). Rav Abadi recently came out that it is permissible to eat a fish dish cooked by a non-Jew if all ingredients are kosher,. Many permit hard-boiled eggs cooked by non-Jews, as some people eat raw eggs (the presence of a shell makes no difference, as it is very porous). In my next post, I will get into the question of utensils. Do we, or do we not, need to consider the possibility of utensils in a restaurant, or a canning plant, having been previously used for non Kosher? Next time.