B"H

Rob,

The third general rule about blessings is "Ain Ha-berakhot Ma'akevoth." (Meaning, the blessings do not hinder the actual performance of the mitzvah.)

So, whenever there is a doubt about whether or not a thing had been immersed, he may go ahead and immerse it without saying the blessing.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

The third general rule about blessings is "Ain Ha-berakhot Ma'akevoth." (Meaning, the blessings do not hinder the actual performance of the mitzvah.)

So, whenever there is a doubt about whether or not a thing had been immersed, he may go ahead and immerse it without saying the blessing.

So if this definitely toyvellable object is going to be immersed out of doubt, and it is immersed without a bracha, then it cannot be the object carried along to be toyveled with a bracha that will also carry along other questionable objects for the ride under that one bracha -- based upon metal plating on the outside for example, questionable whether it has the din of clay or the din of metal.

B"H
Rob,
I am not sure what you are saying here. Are you making a statement, or asking a question? Could you re-word it?
David

Quote "If one is in doubt as to whether a vessel has been toiveled, can one toivel it out of doubt with a bracha?"

No, we always say that Safaik Brachos L'Kula (we don't say.) It's a questionable Bracha L'vatala

Quote "How about if one is certain it was previously toiveled, but is definitely of a type requiring a bracha for toivel, could such a vessel be toiveled with a bracha so that another which does not necessarily need to be toiveled can be toiveled without its own bracha?"

No, you only make a Bracha over things that are obligated to be Toiveled now.

Quote "
If the utensils were subsequently was attached to the ground, it would still need T’vila (and since it’s impossible, it must be given to a Goy or broken to the point that it’s not considered a utensil anymore and a Yisroel fix it.)


Is this similar to the reasoning above for a movable object fastened permanently to the roof and subsequently carved out to be a rain channel?"

It's a proper comparison (I was wondering if anyone would bring it up,) but we'll explain why it's not completely compared. There it depends if it had been a vessel before it was attached(which still remains a vessel) or after it's attached (which is considered part of the ground and doesn't take on a Halacha of a vessel.)

There we're more lenient, as the gemarah in BK 67a and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun hadaf as follows:

2. (Mishnah): If a pipe was hollowed out and then affixed (for water to flow through it into a Mikvah - it is considered a vessel, water which goes through it) disqualifies the Mikvah; if it was affixed and then hollowed out, it does not disqualify the Mikvah.

(c) Answer: The law that water that was in a vessel disqualifies a Mikvah is mid'Rabanan (and Chachamim were lenient).
It would seem from there, because it's only Midarabanan that we are lenient that if it was carved out after it was attached it doesn't get the Halachic status of a vessel. But Tvilas Keilim, which is from the Torah, even if it was attached before it was carved, it would receive the status of a vessel and would need T'vila

Seif 2

HOW TO TOIVEL A UTENSIL WITHOUT HAVING YOUR HAND AS A CHATZIZA (A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE WATER AND THE UTENSIL)

The Mishna in the end of the 8th Perek of Mikvos has a Machlokes (argument) how to avoid this. The first Tanna says that you need to wet your hand before hand (thus having the attachment between the waters of the Mikva to the water on your hand, so that the utensil is completely covered by water of the Mikvah. This will be explained in depth later.) R’ Shimon says that you should hold it loosely.

ARGUMENT BETWEEN RAMBAM AND RASHBA

Rambam learns that the Tanna Kama disagrees with the advice of ‘ Shimon. He holds that you cannot hold the utensil loosely , from a decree of the Rabbis, maybe you’ll hold it too tight. Rashba learns that the Tanna Kama agrees with R’ Shimon. He only adds another way to do it, even if you hold it tight, by wetting your hand. Since the Halacha is like the Tanna Kama, so Halachically, the Rambam Paskins that you can’t Toivel with dry hands while holding it loosely and the Rashba allows it.

The Shulchon Orech in Seif 2 Paskins like the Rashba and allows Toiveling while holding it loosely. The Shach asks why they’re not worried about the Rambam, like the Bach Paskins like it in Hilchus Nidah, that a woman shouldn’t hold anything loosely while Toiveling? The Tiferes L’Moshe (brought in PT) answers, that we’re only worried like the Rambam only by Nidah where it’s an Issur Kureis (punishment by death from heaven.) By utensils, since it’s only a positive commandment and doesn’t even make the food forbidden, we can be more lenient.

The Gra Paskins like the Rashba. He brings the following proofs that we’re not worried when Toiveling while holding it loosely maybe you’ll end up holding it tight.

The following Gemaras are paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf.

Shabbos 57a

She may not go out with threads of wool or linen in her head, or ribbons; (c) She may not immerse with them unless she loosens them.

We see from here that we permit Toiveling things loosely and we don’t worry maybe she’ll Toivel it while it’s tight.

Shabbos 52a-b

(f) (Mishnah): One may immerse it while it is in place.

(g) Question: There is a Chatzitzah! (Rashi - the ring is snug in the chain; R. Pores - it is tight against the animal's neck.)

Answer #2 (Beraisa): The hole was big from the beginning.

So we see we’re not worried when it’s loose that it might be tight.

Yevomos 46a

(Toiveling slaves of a Ger to become Jewish slaves and not to go in to become Geirim themselves and free themselves)

2. They tied a chain around his neck, loosened it and tightened it. They loosened it, so it should not be a Chatzitzah (blockage which invalidates the immersion). They tightened it, so he should not be able to say 'I immerse to become a free convert.'

So you’re allowed to Toivel when the rope was loose.

NEXT POST: WETTING YOUR HANDS TO TOIVEL

"She may not go out with threads of wool or linen in her head, or ribbons; (c) She may not immerse with them unless she loosens them."

My dear Rabbi,

I do not not wish to appear to disagree with the halachic decisions passed down by the Shulhan Arukh, as there are many of us who follow his rulings ... Yet, in my most humble and belittled opinion, Rambam would have disagreed with that sevarah in the Shulhan Arukh simply because there is a difference between a woman's being immersed while woolen threads and linens are tied loosely to her hair (where water seeps through them), and that of a vessel being immersed by holding it loosely in one's hand (where water might not seep between one's fingers and the vessel). There are some of us who follow the halachic decisions passed down by Rambam, just as others will follow closely Ha-Rama (Rabbi Moshe Iserlisch) in lieu of those of the Shulhan Arukh. I have seen people immersing vessels in a mikveh without lowering them down in a perforated basket or cloth, but rather simply relinquishing their hold on the vessel for a second - just long enough for the waters to cover the vessel on all sides.

David

David

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Seif 2

HOW TO TOIVEL A UTENSIL WITHOUT HAVING YOUR HAND AS A CHATZIZA (A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE WATER AND THE UTENSIL)

Shabbos 52a-b

(f) (Mishnah): One may immerse it while it is in place.

(g) Question: There is a Chatzitzah! (Rashi - the ring is snug in the chain; R. Pores - it is tight against the animal's neck.)

Answer #2 (Beraisa): The hole was big from the beginning.

So we see we’re not worried when it’s loose that it might be tight.

Yevomos 46a

(Toiveling slaves of a Ger to become Jewish slaves and not to go in to become Geirim themselves and free themselves)

2. They tied a chain around his neck, loosened it and tightened it. They loosened it, so it should not be a Chatzitzah (blockage which invalidates the immersion). They tightened it, so he should not be able to say 'I immerse to become a free convert.'

It would seem that there is a difference between the two examples cited here and one's keeping a loose grip on a vessel. Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah (Shabbos, ch. 5, beg.), writes that the chain link (ring) is used by men to pull animals, and therefore it becomes susceptible to uncleanness. It would require (Tovilla) an immersion had it been defiled, but one must be careful (he writes) that "the connecting pieces of the chain link are not joined tightly together, but rather a little space is between them."

As we all know, putting loosely connected metal pieces in water causes them to shift from place to place, facilitating water dispensation.

The incident about immersing a slave with iron chains loosely fitting about his neck is the same principle. When a slave is dunked into the water in such a state, the chains are moved from place to place, allowing water dispensation between his body and the iron metal.

Can we say the same thing about HOLDING a vessel, even loosely, in one's hands, without relinquishing one's grip from the vessel?

David

R' Dovid

Let me first say, that I'm not writing , per se, Halacha L'Maaseh, especially to those that have Minhagim. All I'm doing is writing the Sugya, what are the points that are made in the Tur BY, Shulchon Orech and the Achronim so people would have an idea what is the basic Sugya.

Of cours the rambam could answer the questions that are on him. It's not the first time anyone asked on the Rambam and the Bais Medrish is filled with S'farim to answer these questions. It's all part of Limud. Asking good questions on the rambam and coming out with answers. This is part of what I'm trying to incourage.

About your answers, if the Rambam said that the problem is that you cannot hold a utensil loose enough that the water will go through, then you can make Chilukim between different objects how loose they can be held. But he holds that you can hold utensils loose, it's just a Gezarah maybe you might not hold it loose enough. So the Gra felt that in all these cases, they could be held loose or tight. We never see that we're worried that you might not make it as loose then you needed.

Maybe you can be M'Chalek between a utensil which may require a stronger grip to hold on that we have to worry more that you might not hold it loose enough.


Maybe if you have a chance, look at the "Frankel" Rambam if there is anybody that deals with the Gra's question

SEIF 2 CONTINUED
WETTING ONES HAND TO TOIVEL UTENSILS

Last post we explained that one of the ways to make sure that your hand is not a Chatzizah on the utensil is by wetting your hands. Therefore, the water that’s on your hand, when you dip it in the Mikvah, becomes attached to the water of the Mikvah, therefore the utensil is completely surrounded with Mikvah water.

The Mordichai brings up an apparent contradiction. In Chagigah 21a it says, and is paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

(a) What is the reason one may not immerse utensils inside of other utensils for Kodesh?
(b) (R. Ila) The weight of the inner utensil upon the outer utensil constitutes a Chatzitzah.

So, even if it’s filled with water, it’s still a Chatzizah and we don’t say that the water under the inner utensils mix with the Mikvah to be considered part of the Mikvah.

Yet, the Mishna in Mikvos says that when you Toivel a bed, you may let the legs, when you totally submerge the whole bed, to sink into the mud on the bottom of the Mikvah. This is because, the water that was on it when the legs originally came into the Mikvah is still considered attached to the Mikvah. So we see that the weight of the bed pressing in the mud doesn’t make a Chatzizah.

The Mordichai answers, there is a difference between water becoming Mikvah water and water keeping it’s status of Mikvah water.

Only when the water was part of the Mikvah when it came in contact of the floor do we say that it cannot separate water that was already part of a Mikvah to become separate from the Mikvah. Since, when you put the leg of the bed in the Mikvah, the water that touches it is Mikvah water, so when it touches the bottom, it doesn’t lose it status of Mikvah water. The bed is now surrounded with Mikvah water, so it’s a proper T’vela. On the other hand, the utensils that are in a utensil, even if you fill the outer utensil with water, since that water was never considered Mikvah water, the weight of the inner utensil stops the connection between the water underneath it and the Mikvah. Therefore, it never receives the status of being Mikvah water. Therefore the utensils are not surrounded by Mikvah water.

The Rama says that when you wet your hand to Toivel, it must be Mikvah water and not regular unattached water. The Achronim ask on him, even if you stick your hand in the Mikvah, when you your going to grab the utensil to Toivel it, the water now becomes unattached water, since you removed your hand from the Mikvah?

The Matah Yonason answers that what the Rama was saying is that you stick your hand in the Mikvah and leave it there. By using your other hand, take the utensil and pass it to your hand that is in the Mikvah. Therefore, the hand you’re Toiveling with is always in the Mikvah

The Taz says that there are two categories. The Mordichai only refers to a case of utensils, which is all “dead weight.” This would be compared to a tight grip of someone’s hand. These cases need the water surrounding it to always be Mikvah water. But a regular grip of a person doesn’t need the water on his hand to be Mikvah water. Unattached water is good enough. When the water on the hand touches the Mikvah water, it becomes connected to the Mikvah, since the grip isn’t strong enough to separate the waters. This is what the Tanna Kama meant by wetting your hand.

The Gra argues with the Mordichai. He says that the simple meaning of the Tanna Kamma that wetting the hands takes away the Chatzizah is in all cases, regardless of how tight your grip on the utensil is. The case in Chagiga, of utensils inside of utensils, could be referring to a case where they didn’t fill up the outer utensil with water before it was put in the Mikvah, that’s why the weight was a Chatzitzah. But if it was filled up before hand, then the water underneath the inner utensils would connect to the Mikvah and validate the T’vela.

quote:

Therefore, the water that’s on your hand, when you dip it in the Mikvah, becomes attached to the water of the Mikvah

Dear Rav Chaim:

Does anyone there discuss that the water on the hands should be from the mikvah itself just in case it was a mikvah that was just borderline permissible by being maximally mixed with regular water?

That the few drops of non-mikvah water would put the mixture outside the realm of permissibility?

My rabbi once many years ago showed me a book on mathematics in the Torah and Gemara which demonstrated that the number of times a mikvah could be let out half way and refilled with fresh water, as determined by the gemara, was accurate if one was using a logarithm table with 3 decimal places. But with the precision of a 4th decimal place or a modern calculator with arbitrary precision, the mixture could be preserved as majority mikvah water with one or more additinal dilutions.

Perhaps it is just to account for a possibility such as droplets on one's hand or recently washed vessels that the wisdom of the gemara would not have risked a mikvah coming so close to the limit?

Dear Rob,
That Gemarah "Yevamos 82b" is referring to fruit juice. Water always becomes part of the mikvah and no matter how much you switch it, it always remains Mikvah water. As long as you started with 40 Sa'ah of rainwater.

Quote "My rabbi once many years ago showed me a book on mathematics in the Torah and Gemara which demonstrated that the number of times a mikvah could be let out half way and refilled with fresh water, as determined by the gemara, was accurate if one was using a logarithm table with 3 decimal places. But with the precision of a 4th decimal place or a modern calculator with arbitrary precision, the mixture could be preserved as majority mikvah water with one or more additinal dilutions."

The book, if I remember correctly, was "Approaching infinity" by Meir Litman. I saw the book at my father-in law's house, who is a friend of the author and received a free copy,

SEIF 3

THE BRACHA ON T’VEILA

There are 3 Nusachs of the Bracha.

1-Al Hatvilah (on the toiveling)

2-Al Tvilas Keili (on Toiveling a utensil) and when Toiveling more than one utensil saying Al Tvilas Keilim (on Toiveling utensils)

3- Al Tveilas Kli Matches (on Toiveling metal utensils) so that it would imply that other utensils are exempt from Tveila

The Shach Paskins like the last Nusach, that you mention metal in the Bracha. The Taz says that you should not mention metal in the Bracha. We don’t put in all the details of the Mitzvah in the Bracha. Or else, we should also mention only utensils that are for preparing food.

The Taz says though we mention detail in the Bracha over covering blood by saying Al Kisei Hadam B’Afar (on covering blood in earth.) Over there is different, since we need to mention the whole Mitzvah, to have the blood sandwiched between two layers of earth. (First sprinkle the earth on the floor, then Shecht the fowl then cover the blood with more earth.) Thus being "in earth" implies to the Mitzvah for it to be sandwiched in the earth from the top and bottom.

Pri Chadosh agrees with Taz for another reason. You cannot just pick out the material metal, since you’re also obligated to Toivel glass. Even though glass is only obligated to be Toiveled Midirabanan, still, we make a Bracha on it like we make on any other D’Rabanans.

The Mateh Yonason says it depends on the Machlokes of what the Mitzvah of Tvilas Keilim is. Most says it’s from the Torah, as the Gemarah makes a Drasha for it. Some says that it’s only MidiRabanan, and the Drasha is only an Asmachta (not a real Drasha, but a verse that the Rabanan were able to find a hint in the Pasuk for it.) So to those who hold that it’s from the Torah, since the Torah only obligates metal, so you can put that in the Bracha, since it’s the main obligation. But those who hold the whole of Tveilas Keilim is only from the Rabanan, so both metal and glass are only from the Rabanan, so you cannot single out one of them to put in the Bracha.

SEIF 4

KLI SUEDA (FOOD UTENSILS)

The Pasuk by the utensils of Midyan (that tells us how to Kasker utensils) also hints to Tveilas Keilim for what was bought from Goyim.

The gemarah in Avodah Zarah 75b says and paraphrased by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

(j) (Rav Nachman): Even new vessels must be immersed, for after Libun (a type of Kashering), a used vessel is like new (and the

Torah requires immersion).

(k) Question (Rav Sheshes): If so, even scissors used for cutting wool should require immersion!

(l) Answer (Rav Nachman): The Parshah only discusses vessels (similar to those used with fire, i.e.vessels) used for food.

The Smak says that oven grates don’t need T’veila, since they don’t touch the food itself, only the pot, so they’re not considered food utensils. A grill, on the other hand, needs Tveila, since you put the food directly on it.

The Gra brings the Rashba that has the following rational. We learn in the above Gemarah that the utensils that need Tveila are those that would need Kashering. So the underlining factor whether it’s considered a food utensil is if it’s close enough to the food to receive absorption from the food.

We have a rule in YD 92 that two pots touching each other, the absorption of one pot doesn’t enter the other (without having liquid between them.) This is known as Shnai K’deiros Aino Boleya (two pots do not absorb from each other) Since the pot is put on the grate, there is a separation of a pot between the food and the grate. So the grate doesn’t absorb from the food, so it’s not considered a utensil for food as Tveila is concerned.

quote:

The Gra brings the Rashba that has the following rational. We learn in the above Gemarah that the utensils that need Tveila are those that would need Kashering. So the underlining factor whether it’s considered a food utensil is if it’s close enough to the food to receive absorption from the food.

Is this perhaps part of what leads to widespread confusion about whether food served on a vessel that was never brought through t'veila can still be considered kosher to eat?

quote:

Is this perhaps part of what leads to widespread confusion about whether food served on a vessel that was never brought through t'veila can still can still be considered kosher to eat?

It could be.

SEIF 5

KNIVES FOR SHECHITA

There is a Machlokes whether a knife that is used for Shechita or to flay an animal needs T’vila. The Mordichai says it’s exempt, since after it is used, the food is still not ready for eating. Thus, anything that is used only before cooking doesn’t need T’vila. The Tashbatz says that one is still obligated to Toivel it. The Rama says that it’s good to Toivel it without a Bracha.

The Gra says that the Machlokes is dependent on how to learn the following Gemarah in Chulin 8a-b. The Gemarah talks about a knife that was used for serving an idol. It is prohibited to derive pleasure from it. It is permitted to Shecht with it (unless it’s a dying animal,) since you won’t gain monetarily from it; a live animal is worth more than a dead one. You cannot cut up meat with it (unless it’s a big piece, worth a lot, since it can be used as a gift) since meat is worth more cut up.

The Gemarah asks how can he do this, since the knives have an Issur on it? The Gemarah answers that it was Kashered by Libun (putting it through fire.)

The question is, why didn’t the Gemarah say you also need Tvela, just like the Gemarah in Avodah Zara 75b that if you buy a utensil that you use over the fire, you need Libun and to Toivel it. Since in Chulin it doesn’t mention T’vela, and since it doesn’t differentiate between borrowed from a Goy or bought from him, it would seem that even if it was bought, they don’t need T’vela.

The Tashbatz would say, that the case is that they were loaned, not sold to him. The Gemarah doesn’t need to be explicit. He holds that if the knife were sold, the act of selling would be tantamount to annulling the knife from the service of Avodah Zara. Since if the Goy wanted it still for the Avodah Zara, he would never have sold it. Even though for the Avodah Zara itself we don’t say this S’Varah and prohibit it even though it was sold to a Goy. The utensils for the service of the Avodah Zara is not as precious to him as the Avodah Zara itself, so it’s easier to say he’s annulling the utensils.

The Mordichai holds that the utensils in service of Avodah Zara has the same laws as an Avodah Zara. Both are not annulled by selling them. So the Gemarah in Chulin can be talking about if it was sold to a Jew and still it doesn’t say it needs T’Vela.

SEIF5 CONTINUED

MATZAH PRICKLERS

The Rama says, those metal pricklers that make the holes in the Matzos doesn’t need T’Veila. The Taz asks on the Rama that it should depend on the Machlokes in the beginning of the Seif, if it’s use is before the cooking before it’s edible, does it require T’Vela. The Halacha in such a case is to Toivel without a Bracha, so too, these pricklers should be Toiveled without a Bracha.

The Shach defends the Rama and says, only with the case of a knife, though it’s set aside for Shechting and flaying, still, you could use it for food even after it’s cook, if you use it as a regular table knife, do you need to Toivel it. But these pricklers, that are not able to be used after the food’s cooked even if you want to, all would agree that it doesn’t need T’vela.

The Gra disagrees with the Shach. He holds that knives used for Shechita would never be used for anything but Shechita, since he would be afraid that any other use would knick his knife and Pasul it for Shechita. For this reason it’s forbidden to move it on Shabbos for any reason. So even utensils that wouldn’t be used for after the cooking is obligated to Toivel it. Secondly, we see that it depends on what it’s set aside for and not what it’s able to do. This we see from Seif 8, that knives that are set aside to cut parchment or to sell do not need T’veila (even if someone borrows it to use for food.)

LIDS

The lid over a pan baking bread doesn’t need to be Toivel but a lid of a pot to cook in needs Tvela. The Gra explains that by a pot, the steam rises to the top of the lid (and causes absorption) so it’s considered as the food is touching it. But the lid over the bread neither touches it nor has steam rising to the lid.

SEIF6
THE FASTENING OF THE UTENSIL

If a wooden utensil is made out of planks and is put together by metal hoops on it’s outside, there is a Machlokes if it requires T’vela. The Maharam from Rutenburg requires T’vela for it. Even though it’s made of wood, since what’s holding it together is metal, that’s the main part of the utensil. We Paskin like the Rabanan in Shabbos 15b that says that a utensil goes after what holds it up.

The Mordichai says that it’s exempt from T’vela. He holds of Tosfos we had in our first post, that a metal plated utensil needs T’vela only if it’s plated on the inside. It’s only obligated if the food touches the metal itself. So here, where the food only touches the wood, even though it’s considered a “metal utensil”, it’s exempt from T’vela.

The Gra holds like the Mordichai. He says that from the end of Chagigah that says that the Shulchon (table) of the Bais Hamikdash has a Halacha of a wooden utensil. Though it’s coated with gold, since the Torah calls it “the wooden table”, it has the Halacha of wood. Though Rashi learns that this is an exception to the rule, because tof the Gezairos Hakasuv, but usually you go after the plated. The Gra holds that the Pasuk teaches us we always go after the inside of the utensil.

This he learns from a Mishna in Keilim (11:4.) according to the Rambam’s explanation (which he feels is the correct one, though there are other explanations.) A peg that is metal can contract Tuma but a wood peg that is plated with metal cannot (since wooden utensils that don’t have a receptacle cannot contract Tuma.) So we see a plated utensil has a Halacha as it’s middle, not of the plate. Yet, a plated utensil is obligated in T’vela. So we see from here that what causes a utensil to need T’vela is the part that touches the food and not what category the utensil falls under.

SEIF 6 CONTINUED & 7

FASTENINGS OF THE UTENSILS CONTINUED

The Smak says, if you have a silver cup that is held together from the outside by an outer wooden cup, it needs T’vela, since you’re using the metal part. (Even though the Smak says by a plated utensil you shouldn’t make a Bracha on the T’vela unless it’s plated all around (as Paskined by Rama in Seif 1), there the plating is done only to beautify, but over here, you’re intention is to use the metal for the food-Gra.) But if the wood is in the inside, then it’s exempt. The Tur brings those that are Machmer. The Bais Yosef says that they argue in both cases. The Smak holds like Tosfos, that we always follow what the food touches while the others hold we follow the essence of the utensil, which is what holds it together. The Bais Yosef says that you should Toivel by both cases without a Bracha.

The Shulchon Orech Paskins in Seif 6, that a wooden utensil with metal hoops holding it together is exempt from T’vela. The Shach asks on this, that in Bais Yosef he Paskins to be Machmer and Toivel without a Bracha. In Seif 7 he Paskins that a silver cup in a wooden cup is obligated in T’veila (with the implication that even with a Bracha.) The Shach says it must be referring to a silver cup that doesn’t need the outer wooden cup to hold it together, or else you should at least be in doubt maybe we should go after what’s holding it together.

The Gra takes those two P’sakim of the Shulchon Orech and says that the Bais Yosef retracted and holds completely like Tosfos that we only take into account the part that touches the utensil.

The Taz takes the opinion that the Shulchon Orech holds by Seif 6 that it all goes after what it touches, thus the wooden utensil with metal hoops would be exempt from T’vela, and in Seif 7 needs Tvela, since the inner part is metal. This which he was worried from those that are Machmer when the inside is wood, it still needs T’vela, that is only if the outer metal utensil is taller than the wooden inner one, so the outer one still touches the food. (Since it’s not the main part that touches the food, the Smak (the first Shita) held that it’s exempt.)

Halachically, in all cases (except for the Shach’s case where the wooden outer utensil is not holding together the inner metal one), we are Machmer to need T’vela without a Bracha.