Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Someone cooked an article of food in his kitchen in 2000. In 2010, he discovered that it was treif Gamur. Between 2000 and 2010 he changed all his cutlary, plates, etc. so that nothing that he owns is from the original "treifed" up cutlary.

However, Ashkenazim say that there is a halacha called Chaticha Naaseh Neveila Bshaar Issurim - which means that if kosher food absorbed from treif food, the kosher food becomes inherently not-kosher (not that it is a kosher article becomes forbidden to eat because it has not-kosher taste, but that it becomes trief, and when a piece of that kosher food falls into another pot of kosher, it needs sixty times the newly-unkoshered food).

Moreover, many are of the opinion that taste within the walls also become Chanan (Chaticha Naaseh Neveila).

So now, if the person cooked the not-kosher dish in a pot, that pot became treif. He turned around and washed that pot in a Yad-Soledes-Bo kiluach which was not nifsach, so other plates became treif too. That should now spread from plate to plate forever.

Moreover, Nosein Taaam Lifgam (or the twelve months heter) doesn't apply here, as each time the hot water landed on the pot, it becomes treif inherently and the 24 hour count starts again.

Is there a limit to how far Chanan goes?

PS. Not everyone agrees with the Shulchan Aruch, who holds that soap is Nosein Taam Lifgam.

share|improve this question
2  
Who are the "many" that hold chanan by kelim? Certainly not the Rema. –  YDK May 18 '12 at 18:24
    
Presumably you need to add that this individual used all of his utensils with hot food or liquid every single day (including Yom Kippur). Otherwise there would not be a continuous chain of Chana"n (even if we accept the other premises of your question). –  Dave May 18 '12 at 18:39
1  
Also bear in mind that Chana"n with regard to general issurim (other than Basar B'chalav) is only Miderabbanan, so you would not have the same level of stringency concerning doubts etc. –  Dave May 18 '12 at 18:42
1  
Mmmmmmm....dish soap... –  Double AA May 18 '12 at 18:42
1  
"Not everyone agrees with the Shulchan Aruch, who holds that soap is Nosein Taam Lifgam." The Shach, in theory, agrees that it's lifgam, he just says the chachamim never allowed hagala that way. The Shach in the nekudos kesef rejects the Taz's kasha from the maharshal. So there is reason to be machmir by hagala, but very little to stand on to say it isn't pogem. –  YDK May 18 '12 at 20:00
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

As far as I understand this whole question is theoretical — on many counts.

  1. Once it is eino ben yomo, the bleeyos are pagum and can not assur something else, even though its cooking will make the plate itself back into a ben yomo lchatchila.
  2. Once 12 months have elapsed from use according to Chacham Tzvi and Node Byehuda (see Pischei Teshuva YD 93) the bleeyos are completely dead they can not assur anything else.
  3. It's very not obvious to say chanan by keilim — and even if you do, it can not spread without a real bishul.
  4. Who says a kiluach can transfer taam? — See YD 95, 4 & 5 at length — kiluach can only assur kdei klipah and only at the same time of kosher and treif together being hit by the exact same stream.
  5. Many authorities (Maharash Engel) hold that connecting pipes make the connecting only a klei sheini — and Rav Elyashiv explicitly paskens this way. Therefore, even washing them together in the sink may not necessarily affect them (bdieved).
  6. Even among the machmirim by eifer (Shach, Taz, Gr"a et al.), many say our soap works much better than ashes and stops taam from being transferred. Here is an excerpt from a recent excellent article that I saw about dishwashers:

Ashes Attack:

“Wait a minute”, one may ask. “What about the dishwashing detergent (or soap)? “Doesn’t that help out to make this whole issue less of a problem? In the very next paragraph after the discussion of washing dishes, the Shulchan Aruch says that if ashes are added to the boiling water, then it prevents the transfer of taste – even by meat and dairy dishes at the same time! In other words – no harm no foul! Shouldn’t I be able to rely on this? Aren’t ashes equivalent to soap?”

Before we get to soap, the ashes issue is not so clear cut. For while the leniency of ashes is correct according to the Shulchan Aruch and other poskim who defend him, many authorities, most notably the Shach and Taz, maintain that there is no valid basis for such a ruling, and as such disagree with his hetter. Due to the staunch opposition to the Shulchan Aruch’s reasoning, some authorities endorse the hetter exclusively in extenuating and difficult circumstance or in case of great financial loss. It would seem thatin accordance with this, one should not rely on this for a dishwasher l’chatchila.

Soapy Surprise: Yet, the Yad Efraim, the Pri Megadim and other decisors qualify the issue. They maintain that this whole machlokes is only about mixing ashes into the boiling water. They explain that the dissenters are of the opinion that ashes do not do an adequate job of imparting repulsive and utterly inedible taste (rendering pagum). [If you think about it, it makes sense. We eat bread and eggs dipped into ashes on Erev Tisha B’Av without too many side effects.] On the other hand, since “our soap” does a much better job of it, as it most definitely is stronger and better at cleaning than ashes, everyone would agree that it has the ability to prevent the infusion of meat and milk taste to each other, thus averting any possible kashrus problem.

The Chazon Ish (YD 23:1) actually held that one may kasher lchatchila with our paguming agents — bleach etc. — (and not like R Moshe who held only bshaas hadchak) even by ben yomo!

Therefore, I am doubtful as to the author's question, as it does not seem feasible at all to treif up one's entire kitchen from this issue of theoretical chanan.

share|improve this answer
    
I've cleaned up the post for readability's sake. You might wish to consider doing so yourself in the future. (If not, please continue to post good answers anyway, and someone else will clean them up. But if you could do it yourself that'd be better, so no one else needs to.) –  msh210 Jul 31 '12 at 15:08
    
The Chazon Ish (YD 23:1) wrote: והנה יש דברים בזמנינו מיני תמציים שמנקים בהם את הקדירות והמים שהם מתערבים בהם ודאי נפסלין לשתיית בני אדם והקדירות מתרחצים על ידיהם והדין נותן דאפשר להגעיל בן יומו במים אלו שהתמציים מתערבין בהן ונפסלין משתיה. This does not sound like it would include some of the more mild brands of dish soap that are available nowadays. –  Fred Nov 21 '13 at 7:45
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.