Q&A: Absorption into Utensils
Absorption into Utensils
Question
The Rabbi is surely familiar with the studies on absorption into utensils, whose conclusion is that perhaps it is only one part in sixty thousand. The question is: a. What does one do in practice in Jewish law—should/why should we keep the laws of absorption? (As is known, the Radbaz, following a question about absorption, carried out tests in practice.) b. Even if we assume that for some reason we preserve the old halakhic framework, regarding meat and milk one could solve the problem quite simply: after cooking meat, say, you wash the pot and cook something neutral in it and taste it (using an expert taster), and since of course we will not detect any meat taste, it should surely be permitted to cook milk in that same pot. c. What is the real explanation—how is it that in the past they were concerned about absorption? Was the density of utensils once different? (After all, utensils from ancient periods have been found—can one see the difference there?) Or did cooking residue once simply stick, and they did not have modern cleaning agents to remove it? Or perhaps there is some other explanation?
Answer
I really do not know what things were like in the past. All the possibilities you raised are possible. Today, in my opinion, there is definitely room to be lenient, but I would wait for a somewhat broader consensus to emerge (certainly not a full one), after discussion—which has not yet been seriously conducted—of the results of these experiments.
Discussion on Answer
Nadav Shnerb wrote about this in one of the chapters of the book Keren Zavit.
I recommend reading what Rabbi Eitam Henkin, of blessed memory, wrote on this matter. It was also the last thing the author wrote before he was murdered.
http://www.machonso.org/hamaayan/?gilayon=32&id=1067#_ftn14
However, one should note regarding his words and discuss that if nowadays nobody senses it anyway, then in any case it is not considered “imparting taste.”
What does the honored Rabbi think about this?
It was clear to me that this is what they would claim—that our generation cannot distinguish the taste of absorbed flavor—and according to that, of course, the law of the expert taster is uprooted. Why is it acceptable to uproot explicit laws in the Talmud in the direction of stringency, but when it comes to leniency it is called uprooting the religion???
Hello Gal.
It seems to me that even if Eitam Henkin, of blessed memory, is right and the utensils have not changed, it still does not seem plausible to me that tastes have changed. But even if the sense of taste has changed, and even if not—in the end, that itself is the relevant criterion nowadays. What determines things for us is the taste as experienced today, so it seems to me that if there is no taste, there is no reason for concern. In my humble opinion, that is how the core law should work, and the words of the Sages here indeed require further analysis. But as I said, in order to touch such fundamental halakhic principles, some kind of consensus is needed, if only so that halakhic commitment does not weaken.
On the other hand, it is very important to discuss this and formulate such a consensus, because otherwise commitment will again weaken, since the matter looks absurd.
As I wrote, I do not mean a full consensus, only that one could say that such a position exists among the halakhic decisors of our time.
I completely agree.
It is worth mentioning the interesting study on this issue here: “Is there taste perception of absorbed flavor in utensils manufactured today?” — http://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=47546
A. The sources clearly show that the taste is perceptible; this is not some fixed idea.
B. Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Foods 17:1, writes: “An earthenware pot in which the meat of an unslaughtered animal, or the meat of creeping and swarming things, was cooked—one may not cook slaughtered meat in it on that same day. And if one cooked in it the same type of meat, the dish is forbidden; if one cooked in it a different type, then it depends on whether it imparts taste.”
Why does he say “an earthenware pot”? Because the reality was that in antiquity (and this continued in certain Arab societies until the 20th century), they used thick, unprocessed earthenware pots. Earthenware pots absorb up to 9% of their weight! Metal pots were not in widespread use in antiquity.
By Maimonides’ time, that reality had already changed, and therefore he emphasizes that we are speaking of earthenware pots, because those absorb. Indeed, both the Raavad and the Ra’ah explicitly write that regarding iron, one estimates how much it absorbed (which is one part in several thousand) and not according to the one-in-sixty rule.
It seems to me that I saw Rabbi Dov Lior say that one can be lenient with stainless steel if another two halakhic decisors join him.
(I do not know whether the question there was specifically about stainless steel, or whether it is simply a utensil about which no decree was ever made in the first place because it did not exist in earlier times.)