New on the site: Michi-bot. An intelligent assistant based on the writings of Rabbi Michael Avraham.

Swallowing

שו”תCategory: HalachaSwallowing
asked 8 years ago

The rabbi is probably familiar with the studies on swallowing in vessels, which conclude that there may be one in sixty thousand. The question is: a. What do we do according to the law, whether/why to maintain the laws of swallowing (as is known, the Radb\”z conducted field tests following a question about swallowing). b. Even if we assume that for some reason the old halakhic framework is maintained, regarding meat in milk, the problem can be solved in a simple way. After cooking meat, for example, we rinse the vessel, and cook something with fur and taste it (kapila). Since of course we will not feel any taste of meat, it is permissible to cook milk in the same pot in the shop. c. What is the real explanation? How is it that they once feared swallowing? Was the density of the vessels once different (after all, vessels from ancient times were found? Can you see the difference there?), or did they simply get stuck with cooking residue and did they not have modern cleaning products to remove the residue? Or is there perhaps another explanation?


Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply

0 Answers
מיכי Staff answered 8 years ago
I really don’t know what it used to be. All the options you raised are possible. Today, I think there is definitely room for leniency, but I would wait for a slightly broader consensus to emerge (certainly not full) after a discussion (which has not yet been seriously held) of the results of these experiments.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

איתי replied 8 years ago

I think I saw that Rabbi Dov Lior said that stainless steel could be made more lenient if two more poskim joined him.
(I don't know if the question was about stainless steel, or if it's simply a tool that they didn't rule on anyway because it never existed).

חיים replied 8 years ago

Nadav Schnerb wrote about this in one of the chapters of the book "Keren Zuit".

גל replied 8 years ago

I recommend reading what Rabbi Eitam Henkin wrote on this matter. It is also the last thing the author wrote after being murdered.

http://www.machonso.org/hamaayan/?gilayon=32&id=1067#_ftn14

It is true that one should comment on his words and discuss that if nowadays no one feels, then there is no reason to feel.

What does Honorable Rabbi Shalit think about this?

איתי replied 8 years ago

It was clear to me that this is what they would argue - that our generation cannot distinguish between the taste of swallowing, and of course the law of Kafila was uprooted, why uproot explicit laws in the Bible? For example, it is possible to do so, and for the sake of argument, it is uprooting religion???

מיכי Staff replied 8 years ago

Gal Shalom.
I think that even if Eitam Henkin is right and the dishes have not changed, it is still unlikely in my opinion that the tastes have changed. But even if the sense of taste has changed and even if not, this is the relevant criterion in our day. What determines us is the taste in our day, so we will answer if there is no taste, there is no reason to worry. Thus, the answer should be the main point of the law, and the words of Chazal are indeed correct. But as stated, in order to touch on such halachic principles, some kind of consensus is needed, if only so that the halachic commitment does not weaken. On the other hand, it is very important to discuss and form such a consensus, because otherwise the commitment will weaken again because things seem to be arbitrary.
As I wrote, I do not mean a complete consensus, but only that it would be possible to say that there is such a system among the rabbis of our time.

גל replied 8 years ago

I completely agree.

It is worth noting the interesting research on this matter here – “Is there a taste perception of swallowing in the utensils produced today?” – http://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=47546

יונתן replied 8 years ago

A. The sources clearly show that the taste is noticeable and not an idea fix.

B. Maimonides, Laws of Prohibited Foods, 17, 1, writes: “A clay pot in which carrion or detestable meat was cooked may not be cooked in it, meat slaughtered on the same day, and if a type of meat of the forbidden dish was cooked in it, another type of meat that imparts flavor may be cooked in it.”

Why does he say “a clay pot”? Because the reality is that in ancient times (and this continued in certain Arab societies until the 20th century) thick, unprocessed clay pots were used. Clay pots absorb up to 9% of their weight! Metal pots were not commonly used in ancient times.

In Maimonides’ day, this reality had already changed, and therefore he emphasizes that it was clay pots, since they absorb. In fact, both the Rabbi and the Rabbi explicitly write that, with regard to iron, they estimate how much he swallowed (which is 1 in a few thousand) and not 1 in 60.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button