SEIF7 CONTINUED

GRINDERS

The Mordichai says, pepper grinders, in which a metal sticking out of the wooden handle needs T’veila. Since the main part of the utensil is the metal (since you need it for the grinding) it’s considered a metal utensil.

Rav Akiva Eiger says, a coffee grinder, since the coffee needs cooking afterwards, would fall into the argument between Shach and Taz. Taz holds that this is the same question of the Shechita knife and needs T’vela without a Bracha. The Shach holds, that since you cannot use the grinder for any use for ready to eat food, then it doesn’t need T’vela at all.

FUNNELS AND PLUGS.

A funnel and plugs of barrels made of metal needs Tvela, as long as the metal is the main part of the utensil.

If there is any metal nails in a wooden utensil, you only make a Bracha on it if it protrudes in the inside of the utensil where it touches the food. (Then it has both factors, it touches the food and it’s the main part of the utensil (which is what keeps it together.)

SEIF 8
BORROWING UTENSILS

The Gemarah in Avodah Zara 75b says that borrowing and renting utensils from a Goy doesn’t need to be Toiveled. Just buying them, similar to the case of the Torah of the Midyan utensils. (That they were captured an became the property of the Jews.)

The Gra points out, that though in many cases, we say that renting is like buying, since you're “buying them for the day." Over here, it doesn’t say in the verse that they were bought, but rather that it needs to be similar to the case of Midyan, that the Jew received ownership.)

Tosfos explains, that only if you borrowed from a Goy are you exempt from Toiveling. If you borrowed from a Jew that bought it from a Goy, then you need to Toivel it. It’s only exempt when the Goy still owns it, since it has the Halachic status of a Goy’s utensils.

BORROWING FROM A SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT IT FOR NON-FOOD USE.

The Hagahos Ashri says, that if the first Jew buys a knife to cut parchment with (or is a merchant and bought it for selling) then if another Jew borrows it from him for food use, he doesn’t need to Toivel it. Since the owner is not obligated to Toivel it and the borrower doesn’t own it, so from both sides, there is no obligation to Toivel. This is how the Rama Paskins.

The Shach and Taz bring down the Issur V’Heter that he indeed needs to Toivel it. Since the owner cannot use it for food use, even on a temporary basis, without Tvela, thus the owner is considered obligated in this case. They Paskin that you should Toivel without a Bracha. The Taz says, in the case of the merchant, when he eventually sell it, you must inform the buyer that it was already Toiveled for a Sufek, (so now it’s only a doubtful obligation) so he should also Toivel it without a Bracha.

The PT in the name of Binas Adam, if you’re borrowing a lot of utensils, and they’re only obligated M’Darabanan (like glass) then you can rely on the Rama and not need a Tvela.

The Pt says that if the deal is that if you break the plate, then you need to pay the merchant the full price (even his profit) then it’s considered a sale and is obligated to be Toiveld with a Bracha. But if he’s giving money to rent it and he only pays for broken utensils with the price that the merchant bought it for, then it’s only a payment for damages and needs a Tvela without a Bracha

If someone buys the knife from the one who bought it for cutting parchment, he needs to Toivel it.

TOIVELING AT THE STORE

There are some stores where they have a Mikvah on premise, that when you buy the utensil, they’ll Toivel it for you. Some Poskim say that you should make a proper Halachic acquisition before it’s put in the Mikvah. Since, while it’s still in the possession of the store, it’s not set aside for eating, only for selling. Only you will designate it for eating. So you need to own it in order to designate it for eating and be a utensil that requires Tvela.

quote:

Tosfos explains, that only if you borrowed from a Goy are you exempt from Toiveling. If you borrowed from a Jew that bought it from a Goy, then you need to Toivel it. It’s only exempt when the Goy still owns it, since it has the Halachic status of a Goy’s utensils.

Rav Chaim,

Does it mean that if I borrowed a utensil from a non-observant Jew, I need to tovel it, even though the responsibility is his because he is the owner? If Toveling only signifies transfer of ownership from a non-Jew to a Jew, not use, then why should "borrowed" utensils be tovelled? Even in the case of a geyr, utensils don't have to be tovelled because of their "ownerless" status after conversion.

Is Tosfos saying that tovelling responsibility is really communal. Once a utensil is in Jewish ownership no Jew can use it until some Jew (any Jew) tovels it?

How about if I steal a spoon from a goy, or a Jewish-owned restaurant which made it clear they do not toivel?

Does the posession of a Jewish thief trigger enough ownership that the obligation to toivel kicks in?

Quote "If Toveling only signifies transfer of ownership from a non-Jew to a Jew, not use, then why should "borrowed" utensils be tovelled?"

You're not obligated to Toivel if you borrow from a Goy. Only if you borrowed from a Jew that bought it off a Goy.

Quote "Even in the case of a geyr, utensils don't have to be tovelled because of their "ownerless" status after conversion."

I don't know where you heard this Halacha from. The best I know about this scenario is what my Rebbi, Rav Elazar Kahonow (Rosh Yeshiva at Torah Vadaas) wrote in his Tsuvos "Zichron Bitzalel" (57:1:78) that he holds that they need Tvela.

I don't think that when someone becomes a ger his possessions becomes ownerless (if it does, I just thought of a way to make money ) After the Ger dies and doesn't leave any Jewish heirs, then it his possessions become Hefker (ownerless)

Quote "Do you mean that if I borrowed a utensil from a non-observant Jew, I need to tovel it, even though the responsibility is his because he is the owner?"

Yes, because there is a prohibition to use it before it's Toivel, so if you want to use it, you need to Toivel them.

Quote "How about if I steal a spoon from a goy, or a Jewish-owned restaurant which made it clear they do not toivel?

Does the possession of a Jewish thief trigger enough ownership that the obligation to toivel kicks in?"

For stealing from a Jewish place, you need to Toivel since they're also obligated in the Tvela (but of course you need to return it.) If from a Goy, though you had transgressed the command against stealing, there is a Machlokes whether there is an obligation of V'Hasiv Es Hagzelah by a Goy. So it depends on if it needs to be returned. If it doesn't, so it's no worse than a collateral that the Goy plans on abandoning by you, though you don't own it, it still needs T'vela.

not so fast Rav Chaim,
My understanding is that when a geyr converts, the old person no longer exists. That's why he gets a new name. He is a completely new person. So the old owner no longer exists, rendering his utensils "ownerless". But once converted, he then "appropriates" the ownerless utensils...and they now become his. However, when he dies, they belong to the deceased Jew (the new person) so you can't just take them unless he has no Jewish heirs.

Rav Chaim,
Going back to Rob's spoon. Let's say it was truly ownerless...I found it in the park. Must I tovel it?

quote:

After the Ger dies and doesn't leave any Jewish heirs, then it his possessions become Hefker (ownerless

Rav Chaim,
But this is true even if a Jew by birth were to die without any heirs.

EIF 9

UTENSIL THAT WAS TAKEN FROM A GOY AS A COLLATERAL

The Gemarah in Avodah Zara 75b says that Rav Ashi had a collateral from a Goy which he Toiveled and used. His son, Mar, was in doubt of the reason. Was it that his father held that taking a collateral is akin to buying it or that he understood that the Goy wanted to abandon the collateral by him in lieu of the loan. Thus, if it seems that the Goy wants to abandon the collateral by him it definitely requires T’vela with a Bracha. If it’s not known that he wants to abandon it by him, the it’s a Safek. The Rambam says it doesn’t require T’vela. The Ran explains, that the Rambam is consistent since he holds that T’velas Keilim is only a D’rabanan so we’re lenient by a Sufeik D’rabanan. The Rashba in the name of the Ravad says that you need to Toivel it without a Bracha, since it’s a Safiek from the Torah. The PT quoting the Pri Chadash says that glass you don’t need to Toivel since it’s a Safeik D’rabanan.

If you know that the Goy is definitely not abandoning the collateral by you the Shach exempts him completely, since it’s not even a doubt that you’ll end up with it, but the Taz requires a T’veila without a Bracha.

If you don’t know if he’ll abandon it and you Toiveled it without a Bracha, if he eventually abandoned it by you, you’ll need to reToivel it without a Bracha. Since you’re original Tvela might have been enough, so you don’t make a Bracha. But since the original Tvela might have been unnecessary, and now it’s first obligated in Tvela, so you need to Toivel it.

The Shach says in the name of the Issur V’Heter, that if you needed to pay extra for the utensil (over the worth of the loan) then you Toivel it with a Bracha. The original Tvela was only because the Goy would abandon it for the loan, which never happened. Now, when you’re paying extra, it’s as if you’re buying it now and requires a T’vela.

Rav Chaim,
I don't think your post answered my questions.
1. A Geyr is not a goy.
2. We don't know if a spoon found in the park was abandoned by a goy. It's ownerless.

Quote "My understanding is that when a geyr converts, the old person no longer exists."

In some ways yes and in some ways no. I wrote in one of the forums a whole piece in which instants it's considered a new person. Basically he gets a new Neshama, but his body is the same.

Quote "So the old owner no longer exists, rendering his utensils "ownerless". But once converted, he then "appropriates" the ownerless utensils...and they now become his. "

If this would be true, he would need to make an acquisition on all his former possessions. He would have to lift his moveable objects. make a Chazaka (improvement etc.) on his house, If someone came around and did this before he did, then he should be the new owner. So, it would seem, in the aspect of ownership of property, he's the same person.

Quote "Going back to Rob's spoon. Let's say it was truly ownerless...I found it in the park. Must I tovel it?"

If you live in a Goyish neighborhood, that you can assume that it fell from a Goy, then you must Toivel it (if you plan on taking possession of it.

Quote "But this is true even if a Jew by birth were to die without any heirs."

No, even if he dies without children it goes back to his father (if the father's not alive, then to his descendants.) If there are none of those, then you go back another generation and to his descendants. You can keep on going back until you reach the Shevet, so anyone left of that Shevet would be your heir.

Quote "I don't think your post answered my questions.
1. A Geyr is not a goy.
2. We don't know if a spoon found in the park was abandoned by a goy. It's ownerless."

In both cases, it was once owned by a Goy, and thus recieved the Tumas Goy on it. When it gets to the hands of the Yisrael, no matter who's hands, or lack of hands, it went through, it still needs Tvela in order to bring it into Kedushas Yisrael.

quote:

Originally posted by Avi d'Israeli:
not so fast Rav Chaim,
My understanding is that when a geyr converts, the old person no longer exists. That's why he gets a new name. He is a completely new person. So the old owner no longer exists, rendering his utensils "ownerless". But once converted, he then "appropriates" the ownerless utensils...and they now become his. However, when he dies, they belong to the deceased Jew (the new person) so you can't just take them unless he has no Jewish heirs.

I'm with Rav Chaim on this one. I have seen Geirim tovelling all their utensils after their Geirus.

Yisroel, Rav Chaim,

The classic Halachic sources, the Talmud, Rishonim, and the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries, do not state that a convert is obligated to immerse his metal and glass utensils subsequent to his conversion. However, the Darkei Teshuva (120:4) cites the Teshuvot Chadrei Deah who suggests that a convert may be required to immerse those utensils. This suggestion might be implied from the Talmud Yerushalmi. This passage presents that a reason for Tevilat Keilim is that the utensils have entered the holiness of Jewish life. It would follow that the convert's utensils have also entered, so to speak, the holiness of the Torah lifestyle and should therefore be immersed in the Mikva.

There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
1. As a rule, we do not derive normative Halachic principles from Taamei Hamitzvot, the reasons offered for a mitzvah (Rav Moshe Feinstein's addendum to his commentary, Dibrot Moshe, to Masechet Ketubot).
2. Perhaps the obligation to immerse utensils applies only to utensils that one acquired. According to this approach, a convert is not required to immerse his utensils since he has not acquired the utensils from a non-Jew. Indeed, the Talmud (Avoda Zara 75b) Rambam (Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 17:3), and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 120:1), states that the obligation to immerse utensils applies to one who acquires utensils, used in the context of eating, from a non-Jew. This may indicate that the obligation applies only to one who acquires the utensils from a non-Jew.
3. On the other hand, some authorities (such as Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Teshuvot Har Zvi Y.D. 109) rule that one who acquires utensils that to which a non-Jew renounced ownership, must immerse the utensils. According to this approach, the nature of the obligation of Tevilat Keilim is that utensils that once belonged to a non-Jew and which now belong to a Jew must be immersed. Therefore, even if one did not acquire the utensil from a non-Jew they must be immersed. Nevertheless, not all authorities agree with Rav Frank's ruling, (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 18:535).
4. Another consideration for not requiring a convert to immerse his utensils is based on the Talmud's (Avoda Zara 75b) ruling that one who borrows a utensil from a non-Jew is not required to immerse that utensil. The reason, the Talmud states, is that the situation of borrowing does not parallel, the paradigmatic case of Tevilat Keilim presented by the Chumash. The paradigmatic case of Tevilat Keilim is when the Jews, as described in Parshat Matot, acquired the utensils of the Midianites that they conquered. These utensils were acquired permanently and not merely borrowed. Similarly some wish to argue (see Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:19-20) that since the convert's situation is entirely dissimilar to the situation of acquiring the Midianites utensils, he is not required to immerse his utensils.

Halachic authorities disagree about how to rule in this situation. Rav Gedalia Felder (Nachalat Tzvi 1:198) rules that a convert is not required to immerse his utensils. Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (the author of the Tzitz Eliezer), however, rules that he should immerse the utensils without reciting a blessing. One who is faced with this question should consult his Rav for a Shayla since there are differing opinions.

B"H

Avi d'Israeli,

I wish to commend you on your research in the previous post. You're apt to be a Rebbe yet!

David

quote:

a convert is not required to immerse his utensils since he has not acquired the utensils from a non-Jew

Assuming that Halachically he was a non-Jew prior to his conversion, and he owned them in his prior status, why do we not say that he acquired them, as well as the clothing he dressed in after the mikvah, from himself when in his prior status?

In a case of conversion to remove doubt, or if the item was acquired from a Jew while he was learning or conversion, and living a Jewish life in all aspects except not counting toward a minyan, and not being eligible to fully keep Shabbos, perhaps we could say that he borrowed the item in his prior status for the purpose of holding it until his Jewish self would come and acquire it? And thus not in every case would toivel be needed?

Perhaps this is a case where toivel is recommended, but cannot be done with a bracha?

Quote"The classic Halachic sources, the Talmud, Rishonim, and the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries, do not state that a convert is obligated to immerse his metal and glass utensils subsequent to his conversion."

Rav Kahonw deals with this saying, since it is extremely simple deduction and the logic is that there is no difference between them, so there was no need to indicate it.

Quote "There are several problems with this line of reasoning.
1. As a rule, we do not derive normative Halachic principles from Taamei Hamitzvot, the reasons offered for a mitzvah (Rav Moshe Feinstein's addendum to his commentary, Dibrot Moshe, to Masechet Ketubot)."

I don't think that it's a problem in our case, since all the classical Poskim use this as a proof to their Halachos. There is a big difference between the reasoning of Chazal to that of Rishonim and others. What Chazal says is more binding, also you can deduce that their reason they made fits into all cases (i.e. not because the reason applies so the Halacha applies, but the opposite, since the Halacha applied, so Chazal gave a reason to include it.)

Quote "2. Perhaps the obligation to immerse utensils applies only to utensils that one acquired."

That cannot be, since we require it for collaterals etc. and the case of the Torah is not acquired but was conquered. So buying is not the only option. It's obvious that when they say acquire, it's only for the classical case, not to exclude anything.

Quote "3. On the other hand, some authorities (such as Rav Zvi Pesach Frank, Teshuvot Har Zvi Y.D. 109) rule that one who acquires utensils that a non-Jew renounced ownership to, must immerse the utensils. According to this approach, the nature of the obligation of Tevilat Keilim is that utensils that once belonged to a non-Jew and which now belong to a Jew must be immersed. Therefore, even if one did not acquire the utensil from a non-Jew they must be immersed. Nevertheless, not all authorities agree with Rav Frank's ruling, (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 18:535). "

If this would be correct, then an option to get a utensil out of being Toivel it would be to Mafkir it and then reacquire it. Why doesn't the Poskim give this option? Why do they only say to give it to a Goy and borrow it?

Quote "4. Another consideration for not requiring a convert to immerse his utensils is based on the Talmud's (Avoda Zara 75b) ruling that one who borrows a utensil from a nonï·“Jew is not required to immerse that utensil. The reason, the Talmud states, is that the situation of borrowing does not parallel, the paradigmatic case of Tevilat Keilim presented by the Chumash. The paradigmatic case of Tevilat Keilim is when the Jews, as described in Parshat Matot, acquired the utensils of the Midianites that they conquered. These utensils were acquired permanently and not merely borrowed. Similarly some wish to argue (see Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 8:19-20) that since the convert's situation is entirely dissimilar to the situation of acquiring the Midianites utensils, he is not required to immerse his utensils."

This is also questionable, since the only criteria is given in the Poskim why borrowing is not similar to the case of the Torah, as the Gra states, is because it still has the "name of the Goy on it" which wouldn't at all apply to a geirus.

SEIF 10

A GOY ARTISAN THAT MAKES A UTENSIL FOR A JEW

There is a Machlokes in Bava Kama if an artisan makes a utensil for someone (while the customer supplies the material) how the artisan gets paid. Rav Ashi says that the artisan actually acquires the improvement to the material and sells it to the customer (the Bahag Paskins like him.) Rava says that he doesn’t acquire anything, the utensil wholly belongs to the owner of the material (the customer) and he’s only paid his wages (the Rif paskins like him.)

Our first reaction is to say, if a Goy artisan makes a utensil for a Jew (that supplies the metal) would depend on the above Machlokes if it needs T’vela. To the Bahag, since the Goy acquires some of the utensil and sells it to the Jew, it requires Tvela. But to the Rif, that the Goy artisan never owned any part of the utensil at any time, it doesn’t need Tvela.

The Tosfos and Rosh say according to everyone it doesn’t need T’vela. It’s not similar to the case of the utensils of Midyan. Since the Goy only technically own it, but never practically owned it. It never had the name of the Goy on it (i.e. that it’s ownership was never known, since he cannot practically own it.) thus it doesn’t need T’vela.

The Ravya, however, says that since (to his opinion) the artisan acquires the utensil, the utesil needs T’vela. Even if the Jew made a utensil, but it sprung a leak and no longer can hold a Rivius (the smallest amount that it should retain it’s status as a utensil) and the Got fixes it, it’s as the Goy made the utensil and needs T’vela. Since the utensil gets it status from what holds it together, and this plugged hole is what holds it together, so it’s the main part of the utensil. Since the Goy made it, he acquires that part, so it’s as if the main part of the utensil is owned by the Goy.

Thus the Rama Paskins that you should Toivel without a Bracha. The PT in the name of the Chachmas Adam that by glass, you can rely on the Shitos to use it before T’vela, because of Sufaik D’rabanon L’Kulah (we are lenient.) If the Goy contributed some of the metal for the utensil, then according to everyone the Goy has a part of the utensil and needs T’vela with a Bracha.

If it’s the opposite, that the Jewish artisan made a utensil for a Goy (with the Goy’s material) and buys it from the Goy before he gives it to him. According to the Tosfos and Rosh, you need a T’vela, since practically, the utensil belongs to the Goy. According to the Ravya , the Jewish artisan acquires the utensil, so there is no need for a T’vela. So here to you should Toivel without a Bracha. If the Jew supplied all the metal, then it’s completely the Jew’s utensil and doesn’t need T’vela.

If the Jew supplies some of the metal, the Rama says it also doesn’t need T’vela. The Shach explains that since it has two things to be the Jews. That he made it plus he added metal to it. But the Taz and Pri Chodosh say that it was a printing mistake and must be Toiveled. Since the Goy owns some of the metal, the Goy is definitely a partner in the utensil, since he owns part of the metal in the utensil. The Gra adds, that in all case where the Goy gives some of the metal, it needs Tvela with a Bracha. Since the artisan only acquires the improvement, but not the whole thing, the Goy has a partnership in the utensil and needs T’vela definitely.

quote:

and this plugged hole is what holds it together

If a gentile plugged a hole in a metal utensil made by a Jew, but he plugged it with a material which does not require toivela, such as plastic, would that change the result?

Also, is it significant that the goy who makes a utensil for a Jew never used it and planned to sell it as a new item?