Immersing Vessels - Rabbi Binyomin Cohen shlita

00:02 Speaker 1 You’re listening to the “Lema’an Yishme’u” podcast from Machon Halacha Chabad.

00:09 Speaker 2 Immersing utensils. Unlike kashering utensils—when a utensil has been used for something forbidden and you want to kasher it, which involves purging it in boiling water—there is also the immersion of utensils. What is that about? If someone buys a utensil from a non-Jew, even if it is brand new, he must immerse it because it is passing from a non-Jew’s ownership into a Jew’s ownership. If someone is a guest somewhere and doesn’t know whether the utensils have been immersed, he may use them under the rule that applies to a guest. They aren’t his utensils, and he won’t be using them regularly; he’s using them on a one-time basis as a guest. So as a guest, he may use them even if they haven’t been immersed, or if he doesn’t know whether they have. If someone comes to an event hall and doesn’t know whether the utensils were immersed, or visits a friend and isn’t sure the friend immersed them, they may not have been immersed, but since he is there as a guest, he may use them. When immersing a utensil, you need to make sure there is no sticker or anything else on it that could form a barrier during immersion. Glasses, plates, and pots often have a manufacturer’s sticker. If you immerse the utensil with that sticker still on it, the surface underneath doesn’t come into contact with the water. The water can’t reach it because the sticker covers it. So you need to remove the sticker before immersing the utensil. After removing it, sometimes some adhesive residue remains that you can’t get off. You should try to remove it and scrub it as much as possible, and if

03:07 Speaker 2 something remains that won’t come off, then it won’t come off. The main thing is to remove the sticker so it doesn’t form a barrier to immersion and the utensil can be immersed properly. If you’re immersing one utensil, the blessing is, “Who has sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the immersion of a utensil”—“utensil” in the singular. If there are several utensils, it is “concerning the immersion of utensils,” in the plural. Nowadays, some maintain that one should not make a blessing over immersing utensils at all, but should immerse them without a blessing. That is because all factories, or most of them, have shares traded on stock exchanges around the world, and Jews may have bought some of those shares. That means the utensil was partly owned by a Jew. A Jew had a share in the ownership of that utensil, so it did not come from entirely non-Jewish ownership. Since we have a rule that the absence of a blessing does not prevent the mitzvah from being fulfilled, and another rule concerning the possibility of making a blessing in vain, we immerse it without a blessing. That is the opinion of Rabbi Ashkenazi, a”h, and other rabbis. Although we said that today we don’t make a blessing when immersing utensils bought from a non-Jew, because Jews may own shares in companies around the world, there are circumstances in which we do need to make one. If someone buys a utensil from a non-Jew and knows that it came from a small factory with no Jewish partners—for example, in some markets Arab vendors sell utensils they bring from their villages or communities—these aren’t large factories whose shares are traded on stock exchanges around the world. It’s a local factory. Someone brings utensils made in his village, in his own factory. When the utensil was definitely owned by a non-Jew, the reasoning we gave earlier—that we don’t make a blessing because Jews have a share in its ownership—doesn’t apply. Here, one does need to make a blessing over the immersion, because it was certainly owned by a non-Jew.

05:50 Speaker 2 What is this comparable to? Someone buys vegetables at a market or a store without kosher supervision, so he separates tithes without a blessing. Why? Because the produce may already have been tithed by Tnuva, in which case he cannot make a blessing; it would be a blessing in vain, since the produce is already tithed. So he separates tithes without a blessing. If tithing is necessary, he has done it, but he does not make a blessing. But if the greengrocer tells him, “I brought these vegetables straight from the field, from the farmer, and there was no supervisor there, nothing,” then they are definitely untithed produce. It’s clear that tithes have not been separated. In that case, he does make a blessing over separating the tithes. Why? Because he knows for certain that these fruits or vegetables have not been tithed. They are tevel, definitely untithed produce, not produce of uncertain status. Produce whose status is uncertain is called demai. Demai is something we don’t know whether or not it has been tithed; definite tevel is something that certainly has not been tithed, and so one does make a blessing over it. There is also a difference with regard to Shabbos. Suppose someone has fruits or vegetables that he forgot to tithe, and he remembers during bein hashmashos, twilight. This is the period of uncertainty as to whether it is already dark, after candle-lighting, between sunset and nightfall. It is uncertain whether it is day or night. The Mishnah in Tractate Shabbos says, “If it is uncertain whether it is dark, one may not tithe produce that definitely requires tithing.” Produce that is definitely tevel and definitely requires tithing may not be tithed during bein hashmashos, because it is uncertain whether it is day or night, and tithes cannot be separated on Shabbos. But one may tithe demai. If it is uncertain whether the produce has been tithed, one may separate tithes from it during bein hashmashos. Why? Because there are two uncertainties here. First, perhaps it isn’t

08:05 Speaker 2 night at all; perhaps it is still day. We don’t know whether it is day or night. And even if we say that it is night, perhaps this produce doesn’t need tithing at all, because it has already been tithed. This is called two uncertainties: uncertainty about whether it is day or night, and uncertainty about whether the produce has been tithed. Therefore, it is permitted to tithe produce whose status is uncertain. The same applies here. If a utensil definitely belonged to a non-Jew, it is immersed with a blessing. If there is uncertainty—perhaps a Jew has some ownership interest, even a tiny percentage or fraction of a percent of the company’s shares—then it is no longer entirely owned by a non-Jew. It is also owned by a Jew to some extent, so we don’t make a blessing over immersing that utensil, because there is uncertainty. Perhaps a Jew owns some of the company’s shares, in which case the utensil didn’t pass entirely from non-Jewish ownership into Jewish ownership; it was already partly in Jewish ownership. A utensil that you want to reuse also requires immersion. It doesn’t need immersion for its initial use. Take, for example, someone who bought a jar of jam or honey from abroad. The container came from abroad. Since he is using it for the first time—that is, while the honey or jam is still in it and he is using it—he does not need to immerse the container. He doesn’t need to empty it and immerse it. But after the honey or jam, or whatever was in the container, runs out, he says, “This is a nice container. I don’t want to throw it away; I want to reuse it.” At that point, he will need to immerse it in order to reuse it. Of course, that is provided it is a container that was made abroad

10:29 Speaker 2 In Israel. If the utensil was made in Israel, there’s no need. But if it was made outside Israel and he wants to reuse it, he’ll need to make a blessing—uh, immerse it, sorry. He needs to immerse the utensil in order to reuse it. His initial use of the utensil, even if it lasts for a while—for example, a jar of jam that he uses until its contents are finished, even if that takes several weeks or several months—is still considered its initial use. As long as the original contents are still in the container and he is using them, it’s still considered the first use. When is it considered a second use? Once the contents are finished, the container is empty, and he wants to use it again, he’ll need to immerse it before reusing it. The same applies to bottles. If it’s a wine bottle or a beverage bottle made abroad, and he wants to use it again after finishing what was in it, he’ll need to immerse it before using it a second time. If he uses it only once after the original use, it doesn’t require immersion. For example, someone bought a jar of honey and finished it. He doesn’t intend to use the jar as a utensil or a cup, but right now he wants a drink and can’t find a cup, so he wants to use the jar as one. Even though this is a second use, and we said that a second use would seem to require immersion, here he doesn’t intend to make this a regular use. He doesn’t intend to turn the jar into a cup. Right now

13:03 Speaker 2 he needs a cup and can’t find anything else, so he uses it. That isn’t considered reuse or a second use, and he doesn’t need to immerse it, even though he’s using it again after its original use. That’s because it isn’t for regular use. But if he decides that the jar is attractive enough to serve as his cup, that’s different. Once he makes it clear that he wants to use that jar as a cup, his decision changes its status from a jar intended for one-time use to a cup for repeated use. To continue using it, he really will need to immerse it. Nowadays, containers and jars generally have markings showing whether they’re made abroad or in Israel. If they’re made in Israel, of course nothing needs to be done; they don’t require immersion. If a marking shows that they’re from abroad, they’ll require immersion if they’re going to be reused. Then there’s a container that people don’t normally reuse. Take, for example, containers for cheese or for a dairy product made abroad, in a place where the containers are manufactured by non-Jews. The cheese, of course, has kosher certification, and the contents are kosher, but the container is made by a non-Jew, and someone decides that he does want to reuse it. Since almost nobody does that—it isn’t an attractive glass container that other people might also decide to use—even if this one person decides to use it, his personal preference is disregarded in light of what everyone else does. He’s the only one doing it; it isn’t something people do.

15:32 Speaker 2 Since his personal preference is disregarded in light of what everyone else does, even if he reuses it, he won’t need to make a blessing—he won’t need to immerse it, sorry. He won’t need to immerse that container, because most people don’t reuse containers of that type. So even though this person has decided to reuse it, he won’t need to immerse it. We go by what most people do, and most people don’t use such a container again. Therefore, even if he does reuse it, the container doesn’t require immersion, because his personal preference is disregarded in light of what everyone else does. There are utensils that can’t be immersed because immersion might damage them, such as electrical appliances—an electric kettle and the like. What do we do with those? If there are parts that can be removed and immersed—for example, suppose there’s an inner plastic part that can be taken out and immersed, where the water goes—then of course that should be done. But if the appliance can’t be immersed, and immersing it with its electrical wiring might damage it, then, if it has a screw or something similar, you use a screwdriver to remove one screw and put it back. That is considered taking the appliance apart and reassembling it. You don’t have to dismantle the whole thing into its component parts. Removing one screw and then putting it back can serve as a substitute for immersing the utensil. Of course, that applies only to utensils that cannot be immersed. It isn’t a general alternative to immersing utensils.

17:58 Speaker 2 In other words, you can’t say, “Instead of immersing it, let’s take a screwdriver, remove a screw, and save ourselves the immersion.” No, that isn’t the answer. We do this only with utensils that can’t be immersed because they might be damaged—electrical appliances that immersion could ruin. In those cases, we do it by partially dismantling the appliance, by removing a screw. But anything that can be immersed must be immersed; removing a screw should not be used as a regular substitute for immersion. Even if someone removed a screw for some reason because there was no mikveh available, or because he was somewhere without a mikveh for utensils, and this was not an electrical appliance but something that could be immersed, removing the screw can serve as a substitute until he has an opportunity to immerse it. Once he can immerse it, he needs to immerse the utensil. That’s different from an electrical appliance. With an electrical appliance, removing the screw takes the place of immersion because the appliance can’t be immersed—it might be ruined or damaged. But if a utensil wasn’t immersed only for some incidental reason—there wasn’t time, it wasn’t possible, or it didn’t work out—and now it can be immersed, it must be immersed. One shouldn’t rely on having removed a screw and partially dismantled it as a substitute for immersion. Now consider a public kitchen, such as the kitchen of an institution or a wedding hall. They have cups that have been immersed, and they buy more cups. They planned to immerse the new ones but didn’t get around to it, and the cups got mixed together. All the cups are now mixed together. What should they do? Do they need to immerse all the cups or not? On the one hand, you could say: this is something that can be permitted through a remedy; you can immerse all the

20:31 Speaker 2 the cups, and then even the cups that had not been immersed, so that we would now have to immerse them. There is a rule in halacha: something that will become permitted later is not nullified in a mixture. For example, if an egg laid on Shabbos or Yom Tov becomes mixed with other eggs, none of those eggs may be used. Since the egg can be used after Yom Tov, it is considered something that will become permitted later. So seemingly, the same would apply here: these cups can be immersed, and then all of them can be used. But the answer is that it does not work that way. Immersing them involves effort and expense. Since we do not know which cups were the ones that had not been immersed, we would have to take all the cups. That involves both expense and effort, so the rule does not apply. The rule applies when permission will come on its own. Take the egg laid on Yom Tov, for example: after Yom Tov, the egg will be permitted. Nothing needs to be done to make it permitted. Here, though, we would have to take all these utensils and immerse them, which involves both effort and expense. So the rule that something that will become permitted later is not nullified does not apply. The unimmersed cups are nullified in the mixture, and there is no need to immerse all the cups. Utensils that are not used for eating food itself—for example, bowls in which one keeps fruit, such as oranges, apples, and pears—do not require immersion. They are not used to eat from; the fruit is just placed in them. Only utensils used for eating itself require immersion, not those used to store fruit until it is eaten. A person does not eat the fruit from the bowl or put prepared food in it; he only stores the fruit

22:46 Speaker 2 in the utensil, such as a large bowl or the like. He puts fruit, bananas, and similar things in it. In this case, the utensil does not need to be immersed even to begin with, because it is not used for eating. The same applies to a decorative utensil. If someone buys a beautiful glass vessel and wants to put flowers or other non-food items in it, he does not need to immerse it, because it is not used for eating. If he buys it and uses it as a drinking pitcher, that is different. That counts as using it for food, and he will need to immerse it, just as he would immerse any cup he buys. But if the vessel is used only for decoration, like a vase for flowers, it does not need immersion even to begin with. It can be used as it is, since it is intended for neither eating nor drinking. If a person changes his mind—for example, he has a beautiful vessel that could serve either as a planter or as a drinking pitcher—as long as he uses it as a planter or a decoration, he does not need to immerse it. Once he decides to change its use and start using it as a drinking vessel, as a pitcher, it takes on the status of a utensil used for eating and must be immersed before use, because he has changed its purpose. It is no longer used for decoration or beauty, but for eating. And a utensil used for eating or drinking does need to be immersed. In other words, the question is how we regard the utensil: do we regard it as something used for eating, or as something decorative? Even if someone bought a pitcher that is inherently intended for drinking, but

25:17 Speaker 2 he uses it for flowers, as a decoration, placing it on a bookshelf or in a display cabinet, he is not using it for eating. As long as he has no intention of using it for eating, there is no need to immerse it, because it is not serving as a drinking or eating vessel. The same applies in reverse. If someone bought a vase that looks like it is meant for flowers and decided to turn it into a drinking pitcher, we look at what he is using it for now. We do not ask why the utensil was manufactured—whether it was made for decoration or for drinking. We ask how the person uses it. Once he uses it for eating, it requires immersion. When it is not used for eating, it does not require immersion. Suppose someone buys a pot but does not intend to use it for cooking. He intends to use it as a decoration—a beautiful pot to display in a cabinet or on a bookshelf. Although it is inherently a pot, it does not need immersion. But he must be sure that it really will be used only for that purpose. If he decides to change its purpose and make it a cooking pot, then of course he will need to immerse it, because he has changed its intended use. So if it is currently being used in a way that would make it easy to use for cooking—for example, it is displayed empty, and if a pot is needed, someone might take it—then it is advisable to immerse it from the outset. A person might use it for cooking at that moment, thinking perhaps it has already been immersed or perhaps it does not need immersion. But if he has made a substantial change to it—for example, he has filled it with soil and put plants in it—then the likelihood of its becoming a utensil used for eating again is

27:47 Speaker 2 very low. In that situation, the utensil does not need immersion, because its intended use is not for eating but for decoration or other non-food purposes.