Q&A: Immersion of Utensils
Immersion of Utensils
Question
Is it permitted to eat at the home of someone who does not observe Torah and commandments, using his utensils? After all, there is a very high probability (and almost always certainty) that he did not immerse his utensils, and as I understand it there is a rabbinic prohibition against eating from utensils that were not immersed.
Answer
There is room to be lenient, because the obligation to immerse the utensils rests on the homeowner, and the prohibition against eating from an unimmersed utensil is, simply speaking, a penalty instituted to ensure fulfillment of that obligation. See here, and in many other places:
http://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91/%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%95/
Discussion on Answer
The rule is that there is no such thing as an item being muktzeh for one person and not for another. The question is whether, for the homeowner, the utensil is muktzeh due to prohibition, since for him there is a rabbinic prohibition to use it. And perhaps this depends on the dispute between Rashi and Tosafot (regarding fruit in an attic whose opening broke open) whether a rabbinic prohibition creates muktzeh or not.
What is the basis for inferring that, simply speaking, this is a penalty?
I linked above to the source.
According to the view that one can be lenient about this, on the Sabbath would such a utensil be considered muktzeh? Or perhaps it would be muktzeh only for the homeowner but not for a guest? Or maybe for neither of them?