The Frying Pan
Rabbi Kaganoff
Parshas Chukas is the first time the Jewish People found themselves with lots of treif keilim.
The Saga of the Frying Pan
By Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff
Question #1: It Fries through the Air
When the frying oil is all absorbed, is the food considered cooked directly by fire?
Question #2: With the Greatest of Grease
How do you kasher a commercial deep fryer?
Question #3: The Daring Young Pan
Can a frying pan present a daring challenge?
Question #4: On the Frying Trapeze
How do you kasher a frying trapeze? (I also have not yet figured out what that is.)
Kashering
The Torah teaches the halachic process whereby we kasher a utensil, when it commands, kol davar asher yavo vo’eish ta’aviru vo’eish, “Any item that entered fire, shall be passed through fire” (Bamidbar 31:23), thereby implying that kashering a utensil that became non-kosher through direct contact with a flame requires burning the appliance in a flame -- no other process will sufficiently kasher this utensil.
The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 75b) teaches that, upon purchasing used kitchen equipment from a gentile, one kashers the equipment via one of the following procedures:
1) That which is used to broil or roast food directly in fire must be kashered directly in fire, a process called libun. As examples of this rule, the Mishnah chooses a barbecue spit and a grate used for roasting. Since these utensils absorbed non-kosher ta’am directly through fire, they must be kashered by burning them in fire.
2) That which is usually used for cooking in a liquid medium must be kashered in boiling water, which is called hag’alah. Bear in mind that it must be fully clean and rust-free before it is kashered.
Kebol’o kach polto
This Mishnah teaches a rule called kebol’o kach polto, the same way a vessel absorbed non-kosher substance is the way one uses to kasher it. If a utensil; absorbed the food directly through fire, hag’alah, i.e., placing the utensil in a pot of boiling water, will not remove the residue of prohibited substance sufficiently to kasher it.However, if a prohibited or chometz-dik food was cooked in a pot, it can be kashered by hag’alah, which boils out what was absorbed.
Libun versus hag’alah
Hag’alah will remove sufficiently what was absorbed by cooking (Taz, Yoreh Deah 121:7; see Pri Megadim, Orach Chayim 452:4 in Mishbetzos Zahav). Most late authorities understand that the dissimilarity between libun and hag’alah is because the two methods of kashering operate in different ways. Libun removes the non-kosher residue by burning it in situ, similar to the way we destroy the last remnants of our chometz before Pesach. The spit or grill may be used for your kosher barbecue, because the residual flavor from the non-kosher meat has now been completely consumed. (Note, however, that there are rishonim who appear to understand this topic differently.)
On the other hand, hag’alah, boiling, kashers by removing the residue. The word hag’alah means to expel. In the book of Iyov, it says, “Their houses are safe, without fear, and no punishment from G-d is upon them. Their bulls impregnate their cows ve’lo yag’il -- without miscarrying” (Iyov 21:9-10). The Hebrew word yag’il, which I have translated as miscarrying, has the same root, gimel, ayin, lamed as the word hag’alah. Rashi (ad loc.) explains that this root means to expel, and he rallies proof from the Mishnah’s use of the word hag’alah to mean to expel or extract the non-kosher residue by use of boiling water. By the way, the same root can also bear the meaning disgust, something that you want to “expel from yourself.” All of these words -- miscarry, expel, extract and disgust -- carry the same basic concept. Thus, whatever taste of non-kosher food remains in the pot is
dissolved and nullified in the water by the hag’alah (Shach, Yoreh Deah 121:17, quoting Re’ah; see also Pri Megadim, Orach Chayim 452:4 in Mishbetzos Zahav; Shu”t Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 1:60).
Therefore, libun could be used on an item requiring hag’alah, since it will satisfactorily burn up any residue. However, a utensil that requires libun cannot be kashered with hag’alah, since this does not remove sufficiently whatever was absorbed when the non-kosher food was broiled.
It fries through the air
At this point, we have “absorbed” enough background to discuss our opening question: When the frying oil is all absorbed, is the food considered cooked directly by fire?
When frying food, the food is cooked using a liquid medium, the oil. However, it is fairly common that, in the course of frying, the oil is used up and the food is fried without any visible liquid medium. At this point, do we view the absorption of the food into the pan to be direct, without a medium? Or do we contend that, since there is much oil absorbed both into the food and into the pan, it is still considered that the food was cooked via a liquid medium?
If we consider this to be direct absorption, the halachic conclusion is that kashering a frying pan requires libun. On the other hand, if we consider the absorption to be through the liquid medium of the oil, we can argue that a frying pan requires only hag’alah.
This issue is the subject of a dispute between two well-known rishonim who knew one another very well, the Rashba and the Rosh. (For a period of time, when the Rosh was a refugee from Germany who had fled to Spain, he lived as a guest in the home of the Rashba in Barcelona.) The Rashba (Toras Habayis, Bayis 4, Sha’ar 4) contends that a frying pan requires libun to kasher it, whereas the Rosh disagrees, arguing that it is sufficient to kasher a frying pan with hag’alah (Rosh, Pesachim 2:7; Shu”t Harosh 14:1).
With the greatest of grease
How do you kasher a commercial deep fryer?
By the way, it can be inferred from the way the Rashba expresses himself that he agrees with the Rosh that it is permitted to kasher a deep fryer with hag’alah, even it was used with treif oil. However, we will note another opinion shortly.
How do we rule?
This is where we are faced with a true conundrum. Without explaining his reasoning, the Shulchan Aruch states overtly that it depends on why we are kashering the pan. If we are kashering it because it was used for non-kosher, the Shulchan Aruch requires that we kasher it with libun (Yoreh Deah 121:4). However, if we are kashering it to make it Pesach-dik, he requires only hag’alah (Orach Chayim 451:11).
Although there are instances in which the Shulchan Aruch changed his mind, this is not one of those instances, since he writes himself that the law is different in the two cases (Yoreh Deah 121:4). So, what is the difference?
To explain the decision of the Shulchan Aruch, we find three approaches among the early acharonim.
First approach -- contradictory Mishnayos!
The most common approach is based on a passage of Gemara toward the end of mesechta Avodah Zarah. A Mishnah in Zevachim seems to dispute one of the principles that I explained above. The Torah teaches that there is a mitzvah to eat the meat of korbanos, but that there is a time limit within which they may be eaten. After the korban’s time limit has passed, the leftover meat is called nosar, literally, leftover, and must be burnt. Eating it after this time violates a serious prohibition of the Torah.
What happens to the equipment used to cook the korban? The absorbed flavor remaining in the equipment becomes nosar and the equipment must be kashered. This means, essentially, that equipment used to cook or roast kodoshim must constantly be kashered.
How does one kasher the equipment? One would think that we would apply the same rules presented by the above-mentioned Mishnah in Avodah Zarah, i.e., that which is used directly on the fire requires libun, and that which is used for cooking in a liquid medium requires only hag’alah. However, the Mishnah in Zevachim states that a grill used to barbecue a korban requires only hag’alah (Zevachim 97a). This seems to say that there is a one-size-fits-all approach to kashering – and that hag’alah can be used to kasher anything, even that which absorbed the food directly via fire. This approach does not fit the rule of kebol’o kach polto.
As you can imagine, we are not the first ones to raise this question. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 76a) does, and provides several answers. The conclusion of the Gemara is that, when the prohibited substance was permitted at the time of absorption (as in the case of meat of a korban, which is not yet nosar), a concept that the Gemara calls heteira bala, hag’alah is sufficient to kasher it. The opposite of heteira bala is issura bala, which means that the food was prohibited at the time that the absorption took place. The Mishnah in Avodah Zarah discussing used equipment purchased from a gentile is teaching the laws regarding issura bala.
Heteira bala
Why does heteira bala create a basis to be more lenient?
Some explain this phenomenon as follows: When a prohibited substance is absorbed through a medium, such as by cooking in water, hag’alah, boiling out the non-kosher vessel, will remove all of the prohibited substance. However, when the substance absorbed directly by fire, boiling it will not remove all of the prohibited substance. Nevertheless, it does remove most of the substance. When the vessel was used to cook a non-kosher substance, non-kosher flavor absorbed into the vessel and must be fully removed. But when the absorbed substance was kosher at the time that it was absorbed, the small amount of flavor that remains after the hag’alah was never declared by the Torah to be prohibited.
Kashering from fleishig
The Gemara mentions the concept of heteira bala relative to the absorption of permitted kodoshim, which will later become prohibited nosar. It is obvious that if one has equipment that absorbed fleishig residues and one wants to make it pareve, this is a case of heteira bala and will require only hag’alah. Following the logic I explained above, this means that although the Torah prohibited cooking and eating meat and milk together, it never prohibited cooking or eating with milk the small amount of meat flavor that remains after hag’alah was performed on a spit or grill.
Here is another example that I have been asked on several occasions:
In a food service operation, pareve baking trays were mistakenly used to bake chicken or meat. One might think that kashering these trays would require libun, since the absorption was direct from the meat into the tray, without any liquid medium. However, because of the principle of heteira bala, only hag’alah is required. Again, the logic here is that the meat flavor remaining in the trays after hag’alah is not sufficient to be included in the Torah’s prohibition of basar bechalav.
Is chometz considered heteira bala?
Since chometz is permitted to be eaten anytime but Pesach, it would seem that chometz should be considered heteira bala. This would mean that kashering chometz equipment for Pesach use would never require more than hag’alah. However, we find that there is a dispute among halachic authorities whether chometz is considered heteira bala or issura bala. Those who follow the stringent approach rule that, at the time of its use, chometz is what absorbed into the walls of the pot, and chometz may not be used on Pesach. The concept of heteira bala is applicable, in their opinion, to kodoshim products since, at the time that the grillwas used, the kodoshim products were not nosar; the small remnant that is left after the hag’alah cannot be called nosar. Chometz, on the other hand, was called chometz even before it was absorbed.
Whether chometz is considered heteira bala or issura bala is very germane in practical halacha. If it is considered heteira bala, then hag’alah will suffice to kasher all items for Pesach, and one is never required to kasher items with libun to make them Pesach-dik.
How do we rule?
Both the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema (Orach Chayim 451:4) conclude that chometz is considered issura bala. Therefore, one cannot kasher a grill used for chometz through hag’alah, only with libun. However, in a case of major financial loss (hefsed merubeh), one may rely on the opinion that chometz is heteira bala (Mishnah Berurah 451:32, citing Elya Rabbah and Gra).
Now let me return to our question: Why did the Shulchan Aruch rule that kashering a treif frying pan requires libun, whereas kashering a chometz-dik frying pan requires only hag’alah? Remember that we cited a dispute between the Rashba and the Rosh whether kashering a frying pan (from prohibited substances) requires libun or merely hag’alah. In addition, we have rishonim who contend that kashering from chometz never requires more than hag’alah. Thus, we have two different reasons to rule that, germane to Pesach, hag’alah suffices to kasher a frying pan, and only one reason if we are kashering it from prohibited food. Therefore, this explains why the Shulchan Aruch follows a more lenient approach regarding Pesach than he does regarding prohibited substance (see Beis Yosef, Levush, Taz and Shach to Yoreh Deah).
A second approach – from the frying pan into the fire
Based on a ruling found in the responsa of Rav Menachem Azaryah (usually abbreviated to “the Rama”) of Fanu (Shu”t Rama miFanu #96), the following approach is suggested: When cooking in a pot, water is typically used. Thus, the absorption into the pot took place via a medium that is itself kosher, and this might be the reason why hag’alah suffices to remove the prohibited substance from the pot. Since the non-kosher absorbed into the pot via a kosher medium, it does not get into the pot’s walls as deeply as it does when there is no kosher medium, which is the case when broiling or roasting, or, for that matter, frying using treif oil. When non-kosher meat is barbecued on a grill, the non-kosher absorbs directly into the rack or spit without any medium. That is why kashering to remove the prohibited food requires libun.
Similarly, when frying treif products, animal fat was presumably used at times as the medium for frying. In this situation, the medium used was itself non-kosher, and that is why the Shulchan Aruch ruled that we require libun when kashering treif pans. On the other hand, when chometz was fried, such as when someone made French toast, the oil is not chometz. Thus, the chometz always absorbed into the pan via a non-chometz medium, which is why hag’alah is satisfactory for kashering a chometz-dik frying pan (Notes of Rabbi Akiva Eiger to Yoreh Deah; Notes of the Chasam Sofer to Orach Chayim; Shu”t Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah #111; Machatzis Hashekel, Orach Chayim; Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh Deah 121:11).
There are practical halachic differences regarding which approach we follow. According to the second approach, if we are certain that vegetable oil was always used when frying non-kosher meat, there would be no requirement to kasher with libun; hag’alah would suffice. This distinction would not exist according to the first approach.
There is another possible difference in practical halacha in the other direction. I mentioned above that, according to the Rashba, kashering a treif deep fryer may be done with hag’alah. However, it would seem that the Rama of Fanu would require libun, since the oil that was used was presumably some type of non-kosher, melted animal fat.
A third approach
Before I explain the third approach, I need to provide another introduction. A vessel that was used primarily with liquid, but on occasion was used without any liquid but -- does it require libun to kasher it, because of the absorption that happened during the times that it was used without liquid, or may we be lenient to kasher it with hag’alah, since that is how it was used most of the time. This subject is disputed by the rishonim, Rabbeinu Tam, the Ra’avad (both on Avodah Zarah 76a) and others contend that this item must be kashered through libun, whereas the Ramban (op. cit.) rules that hag’alah is sufficient. This latter approach is called rov tashmisho, meaning that an item need be kashered only according to its primary use. (Because of space constraints, I will have to defer the explanation of this dispute to another time.)
Some acharonim explain the Shulchan Aruch’s reason for drawing a distinction between kashering a frying pan from chometz for Pesach, where he required only hag’alah, and kashering a treif frying pan, where he required libun, is because a kosher frying pan is used for many purposes, sometimes with water, sometimes with oil, and only upon rare occasion does all the oil burn off. Therefore, since rov tashmisho is with a liquid medium, hag’alah is sufficient. However, a frying pan that is used for treif is probably used most of the time for frying with melted animal fat, and most of the time the oil burns off. Therefore, the concept of rov tashmisho requires that the pan be kashered through libun (explanation of the Rama of Fanu presented by Pri Megadim, Orach Chayim 451:16 in Mishbetzos Zahav).
Conclusion
This article has provided a small introduction to some of the ideas of kashering. We now have a bit of understanding concerning a complicated halachic issue, with all sorts of ramifications. We can now get a sense of how much one’s rav or posek must keep in mind every time he answers one of our inquiries. Certainly, this is a time to appreciate his scholarship and his making himself available to us when we need him.