Iruiy Keli Rishon-Nifsak Hakiluach:

Definition of Nifsak Hakiluach: Food poured from a Keli Rishon is defined as Iruiy Keli Rishon, and can have two different Halachic statuses, depending on whether it was Nifsak Hakiluach. This term means as follows: If the flow of liquid from the Keli Rishon was no longer attached to the pot by the time it contacted the food, or vessel, such as when a single drop of liquid spritzed from the Keli Rishon pot onto a food, then this is defined as Nifsak Hakiluach. If the flow of liquid from the Keli Rishon was still attached to the pot by the time it contacted the food, or vessel, such as when a stream of liquid spilled from the Keli Rishon pot onto a food, then this is defined as Lo Nifsak Hakiluach.

The question-Is it defined as Iruiy Keli Rishon or as Keli Sheiyni: It is a clear ruling that Iruiy Keli Rishon has ability to cook a Kelipa’s worth of a food and penetrate a Kelipa worth of a vessel[1], while a Keli Sheiyni, according to many Poskim[2], does not have ability to cook or transfer taste. The question is thus raised regarding if the above law of Iruiy Keli Rishon, that it cooks and penetrates a Kelipa worth, applies only if Lo Nifsak Hakiluach, or even in a scenario of Nifsak Hakiluach. Clearly, a stream of Nifsak Hakilauch is not as hot as a stream Shelo Nifsak Hakiluach, and hence perhaps its laws likewise differ.[3]

Case example: One removed a hot pot of Issur or meat from the fire and while moving it a single drop of the gravy spritzed onto a Kosher/dairy food or pot. Is the food/pot Kosher?

The law:[4] Some Poskim[5] rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of an Iruiy Keli Rishon has ability to cook a peel’s worth of a food or vessel, just like Lo Nifsak Hakiluach. Other Poskim[6] that Nifsak Hakiluach of an Iruiy Keli Rishon does not have ability to cook any part of a food, although it has ability to transfer taste. Some Poskim rule this to mean that it can transfer taste to both a food or a vessel.[7] Other Poskim[8] however rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of Iruiy Keli Rishon has the ability to transfer taste to a food, but not to a vessel. Other Poskim[9] rule that Nifsak Hakiluach of Iruiy Keli Rishon has the same status as a Keli Sheiyni for all matters.

If the stream is not Yad Soledes: The above discussion is only in a case that the drop or stream that fell from the Keli Rishon is Yad Soledes by the time it hits the food or vessel. If, however, it is not Yad Soledes, then it does not have any ability to cook or transfer taste and everything remains permitted, even if Lo Nifsak Hakiluach.

Final ruling of case example: If one removed a hot pot of Issur or meat from the fire and while moving it a single drop spritzed onto a cold Kosher/dairy food or pot, then if by the time the drop hit the pot it was no longer Yad Soledes, everything remains permitted. If, however, the drop was Yad Soledes by the time it hit the pot then its law is subject to the above debate brought in Poskim regarding Nifsak Hakiluach. Some Poskim[10] rule that if the drop fell on a food, the food would require 60x the drop. Likewise, if it fell on a vessel, the vessel needs to be Kashered.[11] Other Poskim[12] rule that if the drop fell on a food, the food would require 60x the drop, and if it fell on a vessel, the vessel is Kosher. Other Poskim[13] rule that whether the drop fell on a food or vessel everything remains Kosher. [Practically, regarding Basar Bechalav, one may be lenient to use the vessel after 24 hours.[14]]

Davar Gush-A solid item that fell:[15] The above dispute and subsequent ruling is only applicable in a case that a drop of liquid fell out of a Keli Rishon pot, onto a food or vessel. If, however, a hot Yad Soledes solid fell onto it, then the above dispute is not relevant, and it would follow the classical rule of Tatah Gavar which prohibits the food or vessel one peels worth. [Thus, if a piece of hot meat fell onto a dairy vessel, or a piece of hot cheese dripped onto a meat vessel, the vessel must be Kashered.]

____________________________________________________________________________

[1] Admur 318:19; Michaber 318:10; Shach Y.D. 105:5

Opinions who rule it fully absorbs taste: Some Poskim rule that the pouring of a Keli Rishon has the ability to transfer taste throughout the entire food. [Taz 105/4; Rashal and Perisha, brought in Shach and Taz ibid] The Shach ibid negates this opinion and says that even according to the stringent opinion of Rabbeinu Tam it can only cook and penetrate a peels worth.

[2] 1^st opinion in Michaber 105:2 and so is his final ruling Bedieved; Rama 105:3; 68:11; 92:7; Toras Chatas 33; Tur in name of opinion brought in Rashba; Rashbam; Rosh; Ran; Mordechai; Sefer Hateruma brought in Shach 105/5

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that although a Keli Sheiyni does not have the ability to cook, it nevertheless does have the ability to transfer taste between foods, into the external peel of the food. [2^nd opinion in Michaber 105:2; Rashba; Peri Toar 105:6; Shach 105:5 concludes to initially be stringent and remove Kelipa] Some Poskim rule that a Keli Sheiyni has the ability to completely transfer taste into another food, even more than a peels worth. [Bach 105 and Rashal Perek Kol Habasar 71 brought in Taz 105/4 and Shach 105/5; The following Poskim rule like this opinion unless it is a case of great loss: Taz 105:4 as explained in P”M 105 M”Z 4; Peri Chadash 105:5; Implication of Lechem Hapanim 105 Iruiy; Beis Lechem Yehuda 105:6; Chavos Daas 105:10; Kaf Hachaim 105:38]

Opinion of Admur: It is unclear from the Shulchan Aruch Harav as to what his opinion is regarding a Keli Sheiyni in non-Chametz related Issurim. The opinions regarding a Keli Sheiyni is mentioned in Admur 318:19 [mentions stringent opinion]; 451:33 [mentions lenient opinion and states may be lenient regarding Chametz in certain circumstances]; 467:43 [rules like stringent opinion of Bach/Rashal regarding Chametz on Pesach]. It is unclear as to how Admur rules regarding this dispute in non-Chametz related Issurim, as even the Rama who is lenient here regarding a Keli Sheiyni, is stringent regarding Chametz [see Rama 447:3 and 451:1]. Hence no proof can be deduced from Admur’s rulings regarding Pesach. See Piskeiy Yoreh Deah 67:11

[3] Admur 451:29 “If when trying to Kasher a vessel through a Iruiy Keli Rishon [in those cases applicable], one must beware that the stream of the pouring is still attached to the Keli Rishon by the time it touches the body of the vessel. The reason for this is because any stream which has stopped and is no longer attached to the Keli Rishon, has cooled down, and its heat is diminished in comparison to the heat of a stream that is attached to a Keli Rishon. Therefore, this stream does not ability to remove from a vessel the Issur food that it absorbed through Iruiy Keli Rishon Shelo Nifsak Hakiluach.”

[4] The opinion of Rama: The Rama rules in 92:7 that “If the milk spillage from the Keli Rishon was Nifsak Hakiluach by the time it reached the meat pot, then it has a status of Keli Sheiyni and everything is permitted”, thus implying that Nifsak Hakiluach always has the status of a Keli Sheiyni. However, in 105:3 the Rama implies that Iruiy Keli Rishon is not like a Keli Sheiyni even if Nifsak Hakiluach. This forms a contradiction in the opinion of the Rama [Nekudos Hakesef 105:5; Peri Chadash 105:18; Kreisy Upleisy 105:5; Yad Avraham 92; Beir Yaakov] Some Poskim explain that in truth the Rama agrees that Nifsak Hakiluach prohibits a Kelipa worth, although in 92:7 he is lenient being that the stream passed through a cold surface until it reached the meat pot. [P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Yad Yehuda 92 Aruch 48 and Katzar 64] Others however rule that since Basar Bechalav is only Rabbinically forbidden with Iruiy Keli Rishon [as it does not cook], therefore we are lenient with Nifsak Hakiluach that it does not prohibit the vessel. [Yad Efraim 92:7; Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor] Others rule that we are always lenient regarding a vessel with Nifsak Hakiluach. [Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels; Aruch Hashulchan 105:29]

The opinion of Michaber: The Michaber 92:9 rules: If hot Cheilev dripped from a pan onto a vessel, one is to perform Greida to the vessel. This means that one is required to remove less than a Kelipa from the vessel. [Gilyon Maharsha 92 based on Shach 96:21; P”M 92 S.D. 38] This implies that Nifsak Hakiluach does not penetrate a Kelipa’s worth, but less than a Kelipa’s worth. [Shach 92:38; Minchas Yaakov 55:15; 57:15-16; P”M 92 S.D. 38; Degul Merivava 92:7] Some Poskim explain that in truth regarding a vessel we are more lenient by Nifsak Hakiluach than regarding a food, and only by a food is Kelipa required while by a vessel one only requires Greida. [Minchas Yaakov ibid; P”M ibid] Others say that by a mere drop we are more lenient. [Divrei Yosef 449; Chamudei Daniel, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64]

[5] Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14

[6] Shach Y.D. 105:5 “And even with an Iruiy Shenifsak Hakiluach it nevertheless transfers taste to a Kelipa worth according to all opinions.”; Shach 91:7; Beir Heiytiv 105; Lechem Hapanim Dinei Iruiy; Chochmas Adam 59:2; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 even regarding Basar Bechalav; Kaf Hachaim 105:31;

Is this ruling Biblical or Rabbinical: This ruling that Nifsak Hakiluach absorbs a Kelipa worth is a mere Rabbinical stringency [M”A 467:33, Gilyon Maharsha 105; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal; Darkei Teshuvah 105:64]

Does Nifsak Hakiluach also have ability to extract [Poleit] taste from a food or vessel, according to this opinion? According to those Poskim who rule that Nifsak Hakiluach has ability to transfer taste to a Kelipa worth of the food, so too it has ability to extract taste from a Kelipa’s worth of the food. However, it does not have ability to extract and then reabsorb. [Maflit Ubolei] [Shach ibid] Other Poskim however rule it even has ability to extract and reabsorb. [Yad Yehuda 105 Katzar 19 in name of Poskim]

[7] Implication of P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Yad Yehuda 92:48 and 64; Poskim brought in Darkei Teshuvah 68:58 and 105:64; It is implied from the above Poskim ibid that this applies even by Basar Bechalav

[8] Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels, even earthenware; Aruch Hashulchan 105:29; Minchas Yaakov on Toras Chatas 55:15; 57:15-16 regarding metal vessels that it requires Greida and not Kelipa, but earthenware requires a Kelipa; P”M 92 S.D. 38 in name of Minchas Yaakov ibid; Kaf Hachaim 105:32; Yad Efraim 92:7 is stringent by other Issurim to prohibit Kelipa of food if no loss although permits vessel after 24 hours, by Basar Bechalav he is completely lenient by both food and vessel; Teshuos Chein 6 permits vessel after 24 hours

[9] Implication of Rama 92:7 [however the Achronim don’t learn this way]; Implication of Admur 451:32; Peri Chadash 105:18 [however he is of the opinion that a Keli Sheiyni transfers taste]; Kreisy Upleisy 105:8; Yad Efraim 92:7 in name of Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor that one may permit by Nifsak Hakiluach especially by Basar Bechalav being its only Rabbinical;

Ruling of Admur: Admur in 451:32 states, “Vessels that have absorbed Chametz through a Keli Sheiyni, such as eating spoons which are used to eat from the bowl, which is a Keli Sheiyni (after the stream has stopped from the Keli Rishon), are Kashered through Hagala in a Keli Rishon.” The words in parentheses imply that Nifsak Hakiluach has the status of Keli Sheiyni; See Piskei Admur Hazakein on Y.D. p. 34 who learns according to Admur 451:29 that Nifsak Hakiluach is not like a Keli Sheiyni, and possibly absorbs into a vessel. However, no mention is made there of Admur 451:32 who seems to learn that it does have the same status as a Keli Sheiyni, and it is only regarding the Chumra of a Keli Sheiyni that the above ruling in 451:30 was said.

[10] Shach Y.D. 105:5 “And even with an Iruiy Shenifsak Hakiluach it nevertheless transfers taste to a Kelipa worth according to all opinions.”; Shach 91:7; Beir Heiytiv 105; Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14; Lechem Hapanim Dinei Iruiy; Chochmas Adam 59:2; P”M 91 S”D 7; P”M O.C. Hanhagos Hanishal, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 even regarding Basar Bechalav; Kaf Hachaim 105:31;

[11] Yad Yehuda 105 Aruch 10; 91 Aruch 12 and Katzar 14; 92:48 and 64; Implication of P”M 92 S.D. 34; Yad Avraham 92; Degul Merivava 92:7; Poskim brought in Darkei Teshuvah 68:58 and 105:64; It is implied from the above Poskim ibid that this applies even by Basar Bechalav

[12] Erech Hashulchan 105:7 and Darkei Teshuvah 105:64 in name of Beir Yaakov regarding all vessels, even earthenware; Minchas Yaakov on Toras Chatas 55:15; 57:15-16 regarding metal vessels that it requires Greida and not Kelipa, but earthenware requires a Kelipa; P”M 92 S.D. 38 in name of Minchas Yaakov ibid; Kaf Hachaim 105:32; Yad Efraim 92:7 is stringent by other Issurim to prohibit Kelipa of food if no loss although permits vessel after 24 hours, by Basar Bechalav he is completely lenient by both food and vessel; Teshuos Chein 6 permits vessel after 24 hours

[13] Implication of Rama 92:7 [however the Achronim don’t learn this way]; Implication of Admur 451:32; Peri Chadash 105:18 [however he is of the opinion that a Keli Sheiyni transfers taste]; Kreisy Upleisy 105:8; Yad Efraim 92:7 in name of Chemed Moshe in name of Orach Mishor that one may permit by Nifsak Hakiluach especially by Basar Bechalav being its only Rabbinical;

Ruling of Admur: Admur in 451:32 states, “Vessels that have absorbed Chametz through a Keli Sheiyni, such as eating spoons which are used to eat from the bowl, which is a Keli Sheiyni (after the stream has stopped from the Keli Rishon), are Kashered through Hagala in a Keli Rishon.” The words in parentheses imply that Nifsak Hakiluach has the status of Keli Sheiyni; See Piskei Admur Hazakein on Y.D. p. 34 who learns according to Admur 451:29 that Nifsak Hakiluach is not like a Keli Sheiyni, and possibly absorbs into a vessel. However, no mention is made there of Admur 451:32 who seems to learn that it does have the same status as a Keli Sheiyni, and it is only regarding the Chumra of a Keli Sheiyni that the above ruling in 451:30 was said.

[14] There is greater room to be lenient by Basar Bechalav as it is only a Rabbinical prohibition in this case.

[15] See Michaber 91:4; 105:3 and 6; Shach 91:7