With the help of Heaven
Sources and Reasoning:
1). The Rosh, in his responsa (Klal 26, sec. 26), proved that vapor has the halachic status of the food itself. Maran the Shulchan Aruch cites this as halachah (siman 92, se’if 8). In the Beit Yosef, he brings the words of the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim, siman 103), who writes as follows: Regarding what the Rosh wrote concerning a dairy frying pan, it appears that the criterion is as follows: if the pot of meat would not become yad soledet bo due to the vapor, then even if the vapor rose for one hour or even two, there is no prohibition, unless the pot itself is boiling. Proof of this is that the widespread custom is to hang meat to dry above a stove on which dairy is regularly cooked; although vapor rises from the dairy dish, since the meat does not become yad soledet bo from the heat of that vapor, it does not prohibit it. End quote. One must examine this, for the plain meaning of his words indicates that for vapor to prohibit the food above it, the vapor itself must be yad soledet bo. If the food is in a vessel, the vapor must bring the pot to a boil, such that it is yad soledet bo; otherwise, it does not prohibit the food in the upper pot unless that upper pot is independently boiling. This is likewise explained by Rav Yad Yehudah (siman 92, Peirush Ha’aruch, sec. 55; Peirush HaKatzar, sec. 72): if the vapor alone is yad soledet bo but does not cause the pot to boil, the food is not prohibited; rather, only the pot requires peeling off a layer, for this is no worse than irui. The Rema’s statement, that the vapor is yad soledet bo where it touches the pot, is explained by the Yad Yehudah to mean that ordinarily, whenever the vapor is boiling, the pot too becomes boiling from it. He notes that the Levush wrote likewise (siman 92, se’if 8).
However, the Chavat Da’at (sec. 26) understood the Terumat HaDeshen differently. He questioned this, for the Rema must necessarily be discussing a case in which the upper pot is cold, since if it were hot, it would in any event be prohibited and there would be no need for it to be yad soledet bo, as the Terumat HaDeshen wrote. He further questioned that if so, it should be considered irui, for since the vapor comes upon the upper pot while that pot remains stationary in its place (see Shach, siman 92, sec. 24), it is considered tata’ah; why, then, is all the food prohibited? It should be merely like irui. He answered that since the vapor envelops the entire pot and is boiling, it is as though the entire pot were within gravy standing on the fire. In any event, the Chavat Da’at’s question demonstrates that he did not understand as the Yad Yehudah did, and that it suffices for the vapor alone to be yad soledet bo even if it does not bring the pot to a boil.
2). In any event, let us turn to our case, where it is common to pour spices, such as salt and oil, over boiling pots that emit steam that is yad soledet bo. According to the Yad Yehudah, there is certainly no concern, since the spices are in a vessel and the vessel does not become boiling in such a brief time; only a layer of the vessel is prohibited, and the spice within does not become meaty or dairy. Even if we were to say that the spice becomes meaty or dairy because it remained within steam and is considered as having remained in gravy, as the Chavat Da’at wrote, it is nevertheless permitted because this is nat bar nat dehetera. This is certainly so according to the poskim who maintain that this principle applies even during cooking, as appears to be indicated by the Shulchan Aruch (siman 95, se’if 3); see also Shut Beit Efraim (Yoreh De’ah, siman 37). Even according to the Chavat Da’at (siman 95, sec. 1), who maintains that nat bar nat is not said during cooking, it is nevertheless permitted for Sephardim even lechatchilah, for several sound reasons.
A. It is reasonable that even according to the Rosh, vapor alone for a brief period does not suffice to prohibit the pot; rather, the upper pot must remain there until slight drops of moisture form beneath it, join together, and remain there. (This also resolves the Rosh’s uncertainty concerning a boiling pot: perhaps in such a case it is permitted, since drops do not form as they do on a cold pot.) Accordingly, when spices are poured only momentarily and no vapor or liquid forms on the spice container, there is no basis to prohibit it.
B. In practice, it is not at all clear that the vapor is yad soledet bo at the point where the spice is added. Usually, the spice is added where it is not yad soledet bo. At most, this is a doubt; the Bach wrote in his responsa (siman 24) that where the stove is uncovered and no pot is set within the stove, as in the case discussed by the Rosh, one may be lenient where there is doubt whether the vapor is yad soledet bo, because the vapor has room to disperse throughout the room; see there. This is especially so when combined with the view of several poskim that vapor is a rabbinic prohibition, as stated in Shut Penei Yehoshua, vol. 1 (Orach Chaim, end of siman 13; vol. 2, siman 9). This is also the view of Maharal Tzintz in his work Magen HaElef (kuntres Shem Chadash, p. 93), and likewise in Shut Maharshag, vol. 2 (siman 56). Thus, it is a doubt regarding a rabbinic matter, in which one may be lenient.
C. Furthermore, since it is reasonable that there is sixty times the small amount of vapor absorbed during that brief period, there is no concern at all, even lechatchilah. This does not constitute nullifying a prohibition lechatchilah, because it is the nullification of permitted substance in permitted substance. See Shut Rabbi Akiva Eiger (siman 207). Shut Mishneh Halachot, vol. 9 (siman 158), likewise ruled leniently in a similar case for this reason.
3). For these reasons, in my humble opinion the spice itself is also permitted, even if its container has holes. There is no concern that a small amount of vapor entered it briefly, notwithstanding what is written to be stringent about this in Badei HaShulchan (siman 92, sec. 165) and Levushei Oz (se’if 8, sec. 2). In my humble opinion, this is an excessive stringency. Aside from what was explained above, one does not normally turn the spice container directly toward the flame; rather, one pours from the side while it is tilted sideways. It is therefore not directly above the vapor, which is more lenient, similar to what the Bach wrote in his responsa (siman 24). Furthermore, since the holes are very small, it is difficult for vapor to enter through them. Moreover, since one is presently occupied with pouring out the spice, the vapor does not rise and enter the remaining food, similar to the principle, “since it is occupied with expelling, it does not absorb.” It would seem that the common custom is indeed not to designate separate spices for meat and separate spices for dairy. For this reason, an oil bottle customarily used for pouring into meat and dairy dishes during cooking is likewise permitted.
4). It further appears that for these reasons there is no concern regarding an urn, or likewise a kettle, containing hot water from which water was poured into a dairy or meat beverage. The water may be used for either meat or dairy, because it is nat bar nat dehetera. Even if the kettle became meaty or dairy, the water may nevertheless be used for both dairy and meat, as explained above. This is especially so if the water was poured into a kli sheni, for in such a case the vapor does not prohibit, since even the kli sheni itself does not cook; certainly its vapor does not prohibit, as written in Shut Maharsham, vol. 4 (siman 119), even regarding vapor rising from irui from a kli rishon. In addition, one may combine the Rosh’s uncertainty whether the upper vessel becomes prohibited when it is hot. (Although the Terumat HaDeshen considered this clearly prohibited.) Certainly, then, one may be lenient regarding appliances commonly found today, such as Tami 4 water dispensers and various water coolers: they do not become prohibited, nor does the water within them become prohibited for meat and dairy use. Only on Pesach must one be careful about this because of the stringency of chametz, where even the slightest amount prohibits, as I wrote in a responsum in Shut Torat Meir, vol. 1 (Orach Chaim, siman 97); see there.
5). Nor should it be prohibited on account of nitzok, discussed by the Rema (siman 105, se’if 3). Aside from the fact that the Terumat HaDeshen (Pesakim, siman 103) states explicitly that nitzok is prohibited only regarding yayin nesech or ritual impurity and purity, it appears that even according to the Rema, it applies only where a prohibited substance comes into permitted food, such as the fat and milk discussed by the Rema, but not to permitted substance in permitted substance. This is stated by Eliyah Rabbah (Orach Chaim, siman 451, end of sec. 40), Shut Mishneh Halachot (ibid.), and Levushei Oz (siman 105, sec. 20) in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, of blessed memory. Sefer Shevut Yitzchak—Darzei, vol. 2 (ch. 17, sec. 5), likewise writes leniently in the name of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, of blessed memory. According to what has been explained, if on Shabbat water was poured into a cholent pot from an urn standing on the fire, one may use water from that urn to prepare a dairy drink. Certainly, nitzok does not prohibit in such a case, for it was prohibited only when cold is poured into hot, but not hot into hot or hot into cold, as written by the Pleti (siman 105, sec. 8), Chochmat Adam (klal 59, se’if 5), and Aruch HaShulchan (siman 92, se’if 55). I likewise saw that Shut Minchat Shlomo, vol. 2 (siman 97, sec. 1), permits preparing a dairy beverage from an urn from which water was poured directly into cholent.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
