4

Many years ago, my parents bought me a jar of cider which had a hashgocha clearly visible on it. The cider came in a handled mug with a top (like this https://is.alicdn.com/img/pb/572/105/517/517105572_490.JPG). After I finished the cider, I kept the mug and continued to use it as a drinking glass.

I assumed that the supervision on the product included the toveling of the serving glass because it would obviously be used as a drinking glass when the cider was first opened and then continue to be used as such and would (have) require(d) tevila.

But now that I think about it, I am not sure. Would kashrut supervision include the assumption that I would drink out of the mug initially, and in the future, or is it simply a supervision of the ingredients and preparation/facilities, without any concern as to the uses of the dish in which it is sold?

  • 5
    There's no reason to suspect all kashrut organizations have the same practice here. Your best bet is to contact the particular organization that supervised that product. – Double AA Jul 12 '17 at 14:26
  • 3
    @DoubleAA I'd be (pleasantly) shocked if any kashrus agency bothers to check into such issues. – Loewian Jul 12 '17 at 14:42
  • 1
    @Loewian I agree. Though if they hold like R Moshe then there's no need since the glass is batel to the drink and won't need Tevilah anyway. – Double AA Jul 12 '17 at 14:43
  • @DoubleAA Would that be true if, as the OP asserts, the assumption of the manufacturer was that the utensil would be reused? Source? – Loewian Jul 12 '17 at 18:32
  • @Loewian I see no reason to distinguish. The model case is barrels of wine of Maaser Sheni where certainly people weren't just throwing away the barrels – Double AA Jul 12 '17 at 18:38
2

Star-K give the following guidance for

Can (metal or glass)

This needs Tevilah with a brocha. If bought filled with food and subsequently emptied by a Jew, does not require tevilah.[3]

Note 3: שו”ת אגרות משה יו”ד ח”ב סי’ מ וסוף סי’ קלז, אמנם עי’ בטבילת כלים פ”ד הערה טו בשם הגרש”ז אויערבאך זצ”ל ושם הערה כ מהגר”ח קניבסקי שליט”א בשם החזו”א ובשו”ת חלקת יעקב יו”ד סי’ מב ושו”ת ציץ אליעזר ח”ח סי’ כו וחלקת בנימין סי’ קכ ס”ק צב. The note attributes the guidance to a Teshuvah from Rabbi M Feinstein zatzal but references certain others including Rav Sh Z Auerbach zatzal who I assume disagree.

The published guidance suggests that your mug does not need tevilah. CYLOR.

  • Can you summarize what Rav Moshe said and his reason? I think that would add a significant aspect to your answer. I think OP might have been wondering why such items can be certified kosher to begin with if no tevillah was done prior to filling the jar. – DanF Jul 12 '17 at 17:13
  • @DanF You're right of course. Just don't have the time - but feel free to edit. – Avrohom Yitzchok Jul 12 '17 at 20:44
1

According to Rav Herschel Schachter, shlit"a, himself a rabbinic decisor for a major kashruth agency, the item would likely require tevilla, even before the initial use. See Halachipedia:

Rav Hershel Schachter (Ten Minute Halacha - Practical Tevilas Keilim Issues by Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, min. 8) says that in fact it is forbidden to drink from these bottles. Rather, when you open the bottle, you must pour the contents into another vessel before drinking. On the other hand, Rav Moshe (Igrot Moshe YD 2:40) writes that it is not an issue to drink from the Snapple bottle since the Jew who opens it is considered the one who created the vessel and then it would not require tevilah. Chacham Ben-Zion Abba Shaul (Or Litzion OC 1:24) agrees. Alternatively, R' Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (Sridei Esh YD 2:29) suggests a different solution. He says when you buy the Snapple, just have in mind not to acquire the bottle and then you have no issue as you do not own the vessel and you can drink from the bottle. Rav Menashe Klein (Mishne Halachot 4:107) writes that it is permissible since one doesn’t have in mind to acquire the bottle because nobody wants to buy something prohibited. For a similar idea, see Yabia Omer 7:9:3.

Notably, while it sounds like Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, as cited, might be lenient, the leniency of the Seridei Eish is unlikely to apply to your case. Furthermore, if you are talking about a case where the manufacturer truly intends the utensil to be repeatedly reused, it may be that even Rav Moshe might not have included it in his lenient ruling, depending on whether his source case of wine barrels is interpreted as having been intended for reuse (see @doubleAA's comment on you question).

  • It's sounds highly unlikely that a bottle of cider sold in the store would be reused. – DanF Jul 12 '17 at 20:26
  • @danf I agree. But that seemed to be the assumption/case of the OP – Loewian Jul 13 '17 at 1:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .