✦ ❖ ✦
DAAT · LEVEL 4 — HALAKHA LE-MA'ASSE / PSAK

שולחן ערוך · יורה דעה

Siman 122 — Notén taam lifgam: a taste that spoils, in vessels — כלי שאינו בן יומו and the measure of 24 hours — Practical psika
סימן קכ״ב · הלכה למעשה
דין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים
פסק המחבר והרמ״א · הכרעת נושאי הכלים · הסקת ההלכה למקרים בני זמננו
⚖️ פסק הלכה ולמעשה ⚖️
✦ ❖ ✦

Halakha le-ma'asse — the practical psika

From the ruling of the Mehaber and the Rama, to the arbitration of the Taz, the Shach, the Rambam
and the Arukh HaShulchan, all the way to the vessels in our kitchens

Subject:
שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן קכ״ב (י״ב סעיפים)
עם נושאי הכלים: ט״ז, ש״ך, פתחי תשובה, ערוך השולחן

⚠ Level disclaimer:
This level is not "Da'at HaRav": the Shulchan Aruch HaRav
(the Admur HaZaken) does not cover Yoreh De'ah, hence not Siman 122.
It is a level of practical psika: what one does, and whom to ask.

Writing and iyun:
הרב יוסף חיים סממה · DAAT

How to read this level. Every statement is anchored either in the text of the Shulchan Aruch and its nossei kelim (Taz, Shach, Pitchei Teshuva), or in a named and checkable posek (Rambam, Arukh HaShulchan). On Yoreh De'ah there is neither a Mishnah Berurah (which comments only on Orach Chaim), nor a Shulchan Aruch HaRav / Da'at HaRav (the Admur HaZaken did not write the YD). Every concrete application (le-ma'asse) concludes with the referral to your Rav: real kashrut cases blend factual details — which vessel, which material, which prohibition, how long, hot or cold, lekhatchila or after the fact — that only a posek who sees your situation can decide.

📑 תוכן העניינים

  1. שורש הסימן — נותן טעם לפגם מן התורה ומדרבנן (סעיף א׳)
  2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — מפת הסימן בי״ב סעיפים
  3. כלי שאינו בן יומו — שיעור מעת לעת וגזירת חכמים (סעיף ב׳)
  4. הדחת הכלי ודברים חריפים — מתי אין פגם כלל (סעיף ג׳)
  5. בשר בחלב — חימום מים תוך מעת לעת (סעיף ד׳)
  6. איסור מועט בכלי גדול — קולא שלא נתקבלה להלכה (סעיף ה׳)
  7. סתם כלים אינם בני יומן — ספק ספיקא, שלהם ושלנו (סעיפים ו׳–ז׳)
  8. כלים ביד נכרי והדחתם — ביטול ברוב, סימן, הגעלה, קנייה (סעיפים ח׳–י״ב)
  9. פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — Yalkout Yossef, Yabia Omer
  10. פסיקת האשכנזים — ובראשם ערוך השולחן
  11. מקרים מודרניים — כ״ד שעות, סבון ומדיח, תנור וכיריים, מסעדה
  12. סיכום מעשי וטבלאות — ולמעשה, שאל את רבך

📜 The text of the Shulchan Aruch — Seif Alef and Seif Beth

דין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים. ובו י״ב סעיפים:
נותן טעם לפגם מותר:

קדירה שאינה בת יומא דהיינו ששהתה מעת לעת משנתבשלו בה האיסור הויא נותן טעם לפגם ואפילו הכי אסרו חכמים לבשל בה לכתחלה גזירה אטו בת יומא בין שבלועה מאיסור ובא לבשל בה היתר ובין שבלועה מחלב ובא לבשל בה בשר או איפכא:

The principle (seif 1). A taste that spoils is permitted: when a prohibited substance mingles with permitted food and degrades it rather than improving it, it forbids nothing.

Its application to vessels (seif 2). A pot that is no longer "of the day" — that is, one in which twenty-four hours (מעת לעת) have elapsed since the forbidden food was cooked in it — is a case of a taste that spoils. And nonetheless the Sages forbade cooking in it lekhatchila, by decree, lest it be confused with a pot used that same day. This holds both for a pot saturated with a prohibited substance in which one wishes to cook permitted food, and for a pot saturated with milk in which one wishes to cook meat, or the reverse.

— Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 122:1-2 · Sefaria YD 122:1 · 122:2

1. שורש הסימן — the taste that spoils, from the Torah and from the Sages

The foundation. The whole kashrut of vessels rests on a single question: is the taste that a pot's wall gives back to the next dish a taste that improves (לשבח) or a taste that spoils (לפגם)? The Gemara rules that נותן טעם לפגם מותר: « אמר רב כהנא: מדברי כולם נלמד נותן טעם לפגם מותר » (עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב), against Rabbi Meir who forbade it. Siman 122 is the application of that principle to vessels; its application to foods was set out in siman 103, and the Shach says so in his very first words on our siman.
Two tiers, never to be confused. (1) Mi-de-oraita: the Torah forbade only the pot used that same day — « לא אסרה תורה אלא קדירה בת יומא, דלא לפגם הוא » (עבודה זרה ס״ז ע״ב); after twenty-four hours the absorbed fat is already spoiled, and the dish is not forbidden. (2) Mi-de-rabbanan: the Sages nonetheless forbade cooking in it — « גזירה קדירה שאינה בת יומא משום קדירה בת יומא » (עבודה זרה ע״ו ע״א). Hence the precise wording of our seif 2: the pot is נותן טעם לפגם, and yet אסרו חכמים לבשל בה לכתחלה. The whole practice of the siman plays out in that gap between lekhatchila (forbidden) and bediavad (permitted).

The position of the Rambam

The Rambam states both tiers and then shuts the door more firmly than the other Rishonim: after writing that the Torah forbade only the pot of the day, he adds summary: by rabbinic word, one shall never cook in it, and one therefore never buys from a non-Jew old earthenware vessels that were used with hot food — but if one did and cooked in them from the second day onward, the dish is permitted (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ז הלכה ב). The Arukh HaShulchan notes that the Rambam is the only one who does not accept the presumption "their vessels are not of the day" (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף י״ג); the halakha of the Mehaber and the Rama follows the other Rishonim here.

2. פסק המחבר והרמ״א — the map of the siman

Siman 122 has 12 seifim. The Mehaber lays down the doctrine (taste that spoils, 24 hours, presumptions); the Rama (הגה) glosses three times — on sharp foods, on vessels left with a non-Jew, and on buying vessels. Here is the overall map, as it emerges from the text itself.

SeifSubjectRuling (anchored in the text)
1the principleנותן טעם לפגם מותר — a taste that spoils does not render forbidden.
2קדירה שאינה בת יומא24 hours (מעת לעת) since the prohibited food was cooked = a taste that spoils; and nonetheless the Sages forbade cooking in it lekhatchila, a decree for fear of the pot of the day — whether the pot is saturated with a prohibited substance, or with milk for meat and the reverse.
3rinsing · sharp foodsי״א: the pot is deemed spoiled only if it was well rinsed and every trace of forbidden fat stuck to it has gone; if forbidden matter remains בעין, 24 hours do not spoil it. Rama: but if there is sixty against what is stuck, all is permitted. Rama: for דברים חריפים we do not say נותן טעם לפגם (cf. simanim 95 and 96) — a dish mostly of vinegar, spices or other sharp ingredients cooked in a forbidden pot that is not "of the day" is forbidden; but a little seasoning does not make the dish חריף. Conversely, if it was the prohibited substance that was sharp, then 24 hours passed and non-sharp permitted food was cooked in it — permitted.
4בשר בחלבA pot saturated with meat-and-milk: if before one night passed water was heated in it, it is as though the prohibited substance had been cooked in it again, and the 24 hours are counted from the heating of the water — which is not so for other prohibitions.
5איסור מועטA little forbidden matter absorbed in a vessel never used for small quantities (a large pot, a barrel): permitted to use lekhatchila even on the same day, since it can never impart taste. But a vessel used for small quantities (a bowl): forbidden — אין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה, even a minute prohibition, even an absorbed one.
6סתם כלי נכריA non-Jew's vessels are presumed not of the day; so if one transgressed and used them before kashering them, the dish is permitted. Rama: but heating water in their vessel in order to knead bread — it is forbidden to knead with that water: for this it is still lekhatchila, the benefit not having begun; whereas a product already made by the non-Jew is מקרי דיעבד, and one may buy it lekhatchila. It remains forbidden to tell a non-Jew "cook me vegetables in your pot" — whoever says "cook for me" is as though he cooked with his own hands; perhaps through craftsmen it is permitted, since every craftsman keeps clean vessels for his trade so as not to spoil his work; ובעל נפש יחוש.
7סתם כלים שלנוJust as their vessels are presumed not of the day, our own vessels are presumed not of the day.
8a vessel mixed inA vessel rendered forbidden by absorption, mixed with others and unrecognizable: בטל ברוב.
9vessels left at a non-Jew'sTake care not to leave tableware at a non-Jew's, lest he use it. Rama: even entrusted to a craftsman for repair, make a mark on it; otherwise, hagala on return — and only if it stayed some time, about half a day; for a brief moment, no concern. All this when one wishes to use it the same day (there is then only one doubt); but if he retrieves it only later — or if it waited 24 hours with one or the other — we incline to leniency and do not worry bediavad. Retrieved the same day and used without hagala: יש אוסרים the dish; ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד; lekhatchila be vigilant in every case, including with non-Jewish household staff.
10bowls sent with foodBowls a Jew sent to a non-Jew with food, which stayed there: if the food sent is still recognizable in them — permitted; if not — forbidden if they are accustomed to washing dishes in hot water, lest they were washed together with forbidden vessels.
11buying tablewareTableware in a non-Jew's hands who says, unprompted (מסיח לפי תומו), that it is new, and it appears so: one may buy it from him. Rama: יש מחמירים — he is not trustworthy, and one buys only from someone who sells many vessels; such is the practice lekhatchila, but in pressing need (a traveller lodged without dishes) one follows the first opinion, and that is the main view.
12bowls from overseasיש מי שאומר: bowls that come from overseas, hollow, greenish or reddish, must never be used with hot food, since they are not new — non-Jews use them without its being visible.
כלל הפסק של הסימן :
נותן טעם לפגם מותר — ומכאן שכל כלי שעברו עליו מעת לעת מן הבישול האסור, מן התורה מותר, ומדרבנן אסור לכתחלה משום גזירה אטו בן יומו. שני חריגים מבטלים את הפגם: איסור בעין שלא הודח, ודבר חריף שמשוה את הטעם לשבח. ושתי חזקות מקילות בדיעבד: סתם כליהם וסתם כלינו — בחזקת שאינם בני יומן.

3. כלי שאינו בן יומו — the measure of 24 hours

קדירה שאינה בת יומא דהיינו ששהתה מעת לעת משנתבשלו בה האיסור הויא נותן טעם לפגם ואפילו הכי אסרו חכמים לבשל בה לכתחלה גזירה אטו בת יומא בין שבלועה מאיסור ובא לבשל בה היתר ובין שבלועה מחלב ובא לבשל בה בשר או איפכא:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
What "not of the day" means exactly. The Shulchan Aruch defines it within the seif itself: ששהתה מעת לעת משנתבשלו בה האיסורtwenty-four full hours counted from the cooking of the prohibited food, not from the last time the vessel was handled. The Arukh HaShulchan recalls that the Tur brought two definitions here — for Rabbenu Tam it sufficed that one night pass without cooking, for Rabbenu Yitzchak מעת לעת is required — and he concludes with the Tur, summary: וכן עיקר, the main view is Rabbenu Yitzchak's (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף א׳). That is the measure everyone applies: 24 hours.

The four practical consequences of seif 2

  1. Lekhatchila it is forbidden. One does not knowingly cook in a non-kosher vessel on the grounds that it has not been used for 24 hours. The Sages' decree makes no exception of material: the Arukh HaShulchan writes that no distinction was drawn between metal and wood (which can be kashered) and earthenware (which has no remedy), against those who wished to be lenient with earthenware after 24 hours — summary: וחלילה לומר כן, and such is the ruling that has spread throughout all the communities of Israel (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ב׳). The Pitchei Teshuva reports the same controversy in the name of the Minchat Yaakov and the Nachalat Yaakov and likewise concludes that it is hard to permit, even in case of great loss (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק א).
  2. Bediavad the dish is permitted. Seif 6 says so explicitly for a non-Jew's vessels: אם עבר ונשתמש בהם קודם הכשר התבשיל מותר. The dish is permitted; the vessel itself remains forbidden and requires kashering (see siman 121 · קכ״א).
  3. A rabbinic prohibition is no more lenient. The Pitchei Teshuva reports from the Noda BiYehuda (tinyana, Yoreh De'ah 51) that for a vessel rendered forbidden by a rabbinic prohibition, the 24-hour decree would be a decree upon a decree and would be permitted by law — but that one should not be lenient, since no posek writes it (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב). The Arukh HaShulchan rules without hesitation: לא פלוג רבנן, and he proves it from a non-Jew's milk, which renders vessels forbidden (רמ״א יו״ד קט״ו:א) with no leniency after 24 hours (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ג׳).
  4. Twelve months erase nothing. The Chacham Tzvi (siman 75) wished to learn from libation wine — whose vessels become permitted after twelve months — that every absorbed prohibition likewise disappears. The Arukh HaShulchan rejects this for ordinary prohibitions (one would come to permit lekhatchila) but accepts it for the chametz of Pesach, where a spoiled taste is forbidden by law; and he adds the proof from the Gemara's statement that earthenware never leaves its wall (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ד׳). The Pitchei Teshuva cites the same responsum (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג).

Le-ma'asse (the 24 hours). "It has not been used for 24 hours" is not a licence to use: it is a mitigation that works after the fact, not before. Facing a non-kosher vessel, the practical question is never "how long since it was used?" but "can it be kashered, and how?" — which belongs to siman 121. The 24 hours answer the other question: "it is already done, what becomes of the dish?". For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

4. הדחה ודברים חריפים — the two cases with no pgam at all

י״א הא דחשיבה פגומה כשאינה בת יומא דוקא שהדיחה יפה וסר ממנה כל שמנונית איסור הדבוק בה אבל אם לא הדיחה יפה שהאיסור הוא בעין אינו נפגם בשהיית מעת לעת (רשב״א וטור וראב״ד): הגה ומ״מ אם יש ששים רק נגד הדבוק בקדרה הכל שרי דמה שבקדרה כבר נפגם וא״צ בטול (כן משמע לעיל סימן צ״ה) י״א דבדברים חריפים לא אמרינן דין נותן טעם לפגם כמו שנתבאר לעיל סי׳ צ״ה וצ״ו ולכן אם בישל בקדירת איסור שאינה בת יומא מאכיל חריף כגון תבשיל שרובו חומץ או תבלין או שאר דברים חריפין אסור אבל לא מחשב התבשיל חריף משום מעט תבלין שבו (מרדכי פא״מ ורשב״א סי׳ תמ״ט) וכן נוהגין ועיין לעיל סי׳ צ״ה וצ״ו אבל אם היה האיסור דבר חריף ואח״כ שהה הקדירה מעת לעת ובשלו בו היתר שאינו חריף מותר דאין החריפות הראשון משוי ליה לשבח (ארוך כלל ל״ח):

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ג (המחבר וההגה)
First case: the ill-rinsed vessel. The Mehaber's י״א (Rashba, Tur, Ra'avad) restricts the whole leniency: the 24 hours spoil only what is absorbed in the wall. If forbidden fat has remained stuck and visible (בעין) for want of proper rinsing, that fat is not spoiled by waiting. The Rama at once adds the practical way out: if there is sixty against what is stuck, all is permitted — for what is in the pot is already spoiled and needs no nullification.

The Rashba and the Rambam against the Tur and the Mehaber

The Arukh HaShulchan sets out the machloket: some Rishonim hold that an unrinsed pot is also spoiled after 24 hours, because what remains is not true fat but a film on the wall — and he reports that this is also the Rambam's view in chapter 17; whereas the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch require rinsing (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ז׳). He then rules practically, and this is decisive for our kitchens: even according to the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, the film that prevents the pgam is only true fat — a pot in which much fatty meat was roasted; but in an ordinary kitchen, where one mostly cooks water with groats, potatoes or fritters, what remains on the wall has no substance and is barely fit to eat, so that it must be reckoned נותן טעם לפגם after 24 hours in every case (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ח׳).

Second case: sharp foods (דברים חריפים). The Rama imports here the rule of simanim 95 and 96: בדברים חריפים לא אמרינן דין נותן טעם לפגם. The dish's sharpness restores the taste to advantage (משוי ליה לשבח): cooking a dish made mostly of vinegar, spices or other sharp ingredients in a forbidden pot that is nevertheless not "of the day" is forbidden. The Rama immediately sets a limit: לא מחשב התבשיל חריף משום מעט תבלין שבו — a little seasoning does not make a sharp dish, וכן נוהגין.
The reverse direction is permitted. The Rama closes the question with the symmetrical case: if it was the prohibited substance that was sharp, 24 hours passed, and non-sharp permitted food was then cooked in it — it is permitted, since the sharpness of the first dish does not make the taste advantageous to the second. The Shach develops this in the name of the Orchot Chaim: likewise, a sharp dish cooked in a meat pot that is not "of the day", then milk — the milk is permitted, and we do not say that the sharpness left in the pot now makes it give out a good taste (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב). The Arukh HaShulchan copies this Shach word for word and defends his formulation against objections (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ט׳).

Le-ma'asse (rinsing and sharp foods). Two concrete reflexes. (1) A doubtful vessel that is poorly cleaned, still showing fat or residue, does not benefit from the 24-hour mitigation: visible residue is treated on its own terms. (2) Facing an acidic or sharp dish — vinegar, lemon, mustard, chilli, strong onion and garlic, brine — the 24-hour mitigation falls away, and it can no longer be relied upon even after the fact. Whether your dish is חריף, and whether the residue was בעין, is a question of fact. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

5. בשר בחלב — the 24-hour count that restarts

קדרה הבלועה מבשר וחלב אם קודם שעבר לילה אחד חממו בה מים חשיב כאילו חזר ונתבשל בה האיסור ומונים מעת לעת משעה שהוחמו המים מה שאין כן בשאר איסורים (טור סימן קכ״א וסימן צ״ד וע״ל סימן צ״ד ס״ק כ״ב וסימן ק״ג):

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ד
The rule and its reason. Seif 4 deals with a pot saturated with meat-and-milk, that is, one that has itself become forbidden. If, before one night passed, water was heated in it, that water counts as though the prohibited substance had been cooked in it again: one starts afresh and counts the 24 hours from the heating of the water. For other prohibitions, not so. The Taz gives the reason: in meat-and-milk we say חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה — the piece itself becomes a nevela; these waters therefore become nevela in turn through what they drew from the pot, which we do not say for other prohibitions (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב, with a reference to siman 103).
One night or twenty-four hours? The seif writes קודם שעבר לילה אחד — "before one night passed" — whereas the measure of pgam is מעת לעת. The Arukh HaShulchan raises the difficulty himself and resolves it: although the view of Rabbenu Yitzchak requiring 24 hours was adopted as the main one for pgam, for the heating of water they were lenient with one night (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף א׳, referring to siman 103).

Le-ma'asse (meat-and-milk). Remember this unusual rule: in a meat-and-milk mishap, boiling water in the pot does not clean it — it resets the clock. The reflex gesture ("I'll boil water in it to clean it") is precisely the one that prolongs the problem. Do nothing, and ask. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

6. איסור מועט בכלי גדול — a leniency the nossei kelim set aside

איסור מועט שנבלע בכלי שדרכו שלא להשתמש בו בהיתר מועט בכדי שיתן זה טעם בהיתר כדי שישתמשו בו כמו קדירה גדולה וחבית וכיוצא בהן הרי זה מותר להשתמש בו לכתחלה אף על פי שהוא בן יומו לפי שאי אפשר לבא לידי נתינת טעם אבל אם הוא כלי שמשתמשין בו בדבר מועט כמו קערה וכיוצא בה אסור להשתמש בו שאין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה אפילו איסור מועט ואפילו איסור הבלוע:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ה
What the Mehaber says. Following the Rashba, the Mehaber permits using lekhatchila, and even on the same day, a vessel whose use excludes any small quantity — a large pot, a barrel — when the prohibited matter absorbed in it is so slight that it can never impart taste. But in a bowl, where small quantities are handled, it is forbidden: אין מבטלין איסור לכתחלה, even a minute prohibition, even an absorbed one.

The Tur, the Ra'ah, the Bach, the Taz and the Shach against this leniency

This is one of the rare places in the siman where both principal commentaries set aside the Mehaber's ruling together. The Shach writes that the Ra'ah and the Tur objected and that so ruled the Bach (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג). The Taz refers to what he established at siman 99 seif 7: summary — as to halakha, we do not hold thus (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ג). The Tur's objection, as reported by the Arukh HaShulchan, is an a fortiori argument: if a pot that is not of the day, though permitted, was forbidden by decree on account of the pot of the day, all the more must one decree here, lest one come to use that very vessel for a small quantity (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף י׳).

Le-ma'asse (the large vessel). Do not rely on the reasoning "in such a large pot there is sixty anyway" in order to knowingly use a problematic vessel: that is precisely the move the Taz, the Shach and the Bach refuse. The sixty calculation belongs to bediavad, once the deed is done. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

7. סתם כלים אינם בני יומן — the presumption, theirs and ours

סתם כלי עובד כוכבים הם בחזקת שאינם בני יומן לפיכך אם עבר ונשתמש בהם קודם הכשר התבשיל מותר: הגה אבל אם חמם מים בכלי של עובד כוכבים ללוש בהן פת אסור ללוש באותן מים דלדבר זה מקרי לכתחלה הואיל ועדיין לא התחיל הנאתו שלא הוחמו לשתיה (ש״ד והגהותיו) אבל דבר שנעשה בשבילו ולא בשביל דבר אחר אע״פ שהוא של עובד כוכבים וישראל קונה ממנו לכתחלה מותר דמאחר דכבר נעשה ביד עובד כוכבים מקרי דיעבד: אף על פי כן אסור לומר לעובד כוכבים בשל לי ירקות בקדרתך וכן לא יאמר לו עשה לי מרקחת שכל האומר בשל לי הרי הוא כאלו בישל בידיו ואפשר שעל ידי הרקחים (או שאר אומנים) מותר שכל האומנים מיחדים כלים נקיים למלאכתם כדי שלא יפגמו אומנותם ובעל נפש יחוש שדברים אלו מביאים לידי טהרה ונקיות:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ו (המחבר וההגה)
כשם שסתם כליהם של עובדי כוכבים אינם בני יומן כך סתם כלים שלנו בחזקת שאינן בני יומן:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ז
Why this presumption? The Shach gives the poskim's reason: it is a ספק ספיקא — a doubt whether they used it today or yesterday; and even granting they used it today, a doubt whether they used it with something that spoils visibly or that imparts no taste. And it is precisely for that reason, he adds, that it remains forbidden to cook in them lekhatchila: there only one doubt remains, and a pot that is not "of the day" is already forbidden lekhatchila (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד). The Taz gives the same reason in the name of the Tur and derives seif 7 from it explicitly: since the reason is a ספק ספיקא, our own vessels benefit from it too (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד).
The Rama's three glosses on seif 6. (1) Water heated for kneading: heating water in their vessel in order to knead bread — it is forbidden to knead with that water, for in this respect one is still lekhatchila: the benefit has not begun, the water not having been heated to be drunk. The Shach draws the converse: had it been heated to be drunk, one could drink it, for in that respect it is already דיעבד (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ה). (2) The already-made product: what the non-Jew made for himself is מקרי דיעבד, and a Jew may buy it from him lekhatchila. (3) Asking: telling a non-Jew "cook me vegetables in your pot" remains forbidden — שכל האומר בשל לי הרי הוא כאלו בישל בידיו.
The craftsmen, and the ba'al nefesh. The Mehaber adds that it may be that through confectioners — or other craftsmen — it is permitted, שכל האומנים מיחדים כלים נקיים למלאכתם כדי שלא יפגמו אומנותם; but ובעל נפש יחוש, for these matters lead to purity and cleanliness. The Arukh HaShulchan updates this: in our time, for apothecaries, confectioners and sweet-makers, there is no doubt at all, since it is clear that they have dedicated vessels — so that even a ba'al nefesh need no longer keep away (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ט״ו).

And if one asked, and he answered?

The Maharshal holds that the presumption only exempts one from asking; if one asked and learned that the vessel was indeed used today, one must ask further what was cooked in it, and if it is something that does not spoil, there is no longer a ספק ספיקא and it is not fitting to permit — so report the Shach (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד) and the Taz (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד). The Taz refuses at length: a doubt remains, since a non-Jew commonly lies, and one does not follow the vessel's presumption while abandoning that of the dish cooked in it, which stands in a presumption of kashrut. He does add a reservation: if the non-Jew says so of his own accord, unasked and without aiming at the Jew, there is room to be strict. The Arukh HaShulchan concludes that there is no general rule here and that everything depends on the case (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ט״ז).

Our vessels are not quite like theirs (seif 7). The Pitchei Teshuva reports from the Be'er Sheva (siman 30) that despite the assimilation of the two presumptions, there is a great difference between them: we say "our vessels are not of the day" only when the owner is not before us to be asked; whereas for a non-Jew's vessel, even if he is there, one need not ask, since his word carries no weight (פתחי תשובה יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ו). In the same vein, the Arukh HaShulchan reports from the Mordechai in the name of the Maharam that with our vessels, if the master of the house is at home, one may ask him — and if one did not, it is fitting to penalise him and say the vessel is of the day (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף י״ג). The Taz specifies, in the name of the Darkhei Moshe, that this penalty applies only to the owner of the pot, who ought to have known, and not to a third party (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ד).

👈 The Arukh HaShulchan's warning — decisive for today

Having set out the whole presumption, the Arukh HaShulchan refuses to let it become a licence to use: « ומימינו לא שמענו לסמוך על היתר זה ולא יעשה כן בישראל לאכול אף המותר מכליהם על סמך זה דאינם בני יומן » (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ט״ז). And he gives an example from his own time, transposable to ours: in coffee houses where people drink with milk, they drink at every hour, and the vessels are certainly of the day; tea, on the other hand, is permitted, since for that everyone has dedicated vessels.

Le-ma'asse (the presumption). The presumption "the vessels are not of the day" serves not to forbid after the fact — a dish already cooked, a purchase already made, a vessel found. It does not serve to decide to go and eat in a non-kosher kitchen: the Arukh HaShulchan writes this plainly, and in any case a vessel used today voids the leniency. At home, in doubt about one's own vessel, the presumption applies — but if the master of the house is there, one asks him. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

8. כלים ביד נכרי — mixture, deposit, washing, purchase

a) A forbidden vessel mixed with others (seif 8)

כלי שנאסר בבליעת איסור ונתערב באחרים ואינו ניכר בטל ברוב (טור בשם רשב״א):

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ח
The Mehaber reports the Rashba through the Tur: a vessel rendered forbidden by absorption, fallen among identical others and unrecognizable, is nullified by the majority. The Shach notes that this seif duplicates siman 102 seif 3, where the matter is explained (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ז). The Arukh HaShulchan gives the Rashba's reason: although it could be kashered and made permitted, it is not placed in the category of that שיש לו מתירין — for that whose permissions do not come of themselves and require spending money is not in that category; and he adds that the same rule holds for a meat vessel mixed with milk vessels (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף י״ז).

b) Vessels left at a non-Jew's (seif 9)

יש ליזהר מלהניח בבית עובד כוכבים כלי סעודה דחיישינן שמא ישתמש בהם: הגה ואפילו אם נתנם לאומן לתקנם צריך לעשות בהם סימן (ב״י בשם א״ח) שלא ישתמש בהם העובד כוכבים ואם עבר ולא עשה כשחזר ולקחן מן העובד כוכבים צריכים הגעלה ודוקא אם שהו קצת אצל העובד כוכבים דהיינו כחצי יום אבל לפי שעה אין לחוש (מרדכי פא״מ) וכל זה כשרוצה להשתמש בו ביום שנתנו לו דליכא אלא חדא ספיקא שמא נשתמש בו העובד כוכבים או לא אבל אם לא לקחו מן העובד כוכבים עד לאחר זמן דנוכל לומר אף אם נשתמש בו העובד כוכבים כבר נפגם ונשתהה מעל״ע או שנשתהה ביד ישראל לאחר שלקחו מן העובד כוכבים מעל״ע אזלינן לקולא ואין חוששין בדיעבד (סברת הרב) ואם לקחו מן העובד כוכבים באותו יום שנתנו לו ועבר ונשתמש בו בלא הגעלה יש אוסרים המאכל כמו בכלי שהוא בודאי בן יומו (ארוך) ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד ולכתחלה יש ליזהר בכל ענין אפילו בעבדים ושפחות העובדי כוכבים שבבית ישראל שלא לייחד כלים שלנו אצלן שמא ישתמשו בהן בדברים האסורים (שם במרדכי) וע״ל סימן קל״ו:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:ט (המחבר וההגה)

The Rama, the Taz and the Shach — three positions on bediavad

The Rama closes his long הגה with: ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד. The Taz opposes him head-on: having shown, from the Mordechai, that when the object is returned the same day there is only one doubt — "perhaps he used it with something that spoils" being here not a doubt but the ordinary case — he concludes that there is no leniency bediavad even in great need, against what the Rama wrote, and that even bediavad it is forbidden (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ח), then repeats it in a word in the next ס״ק (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ט). The Shach defends the Rama throughout and specifies what אין חוששין בדיעבד means: not that the dish is permitted after the fact — that is obvious — but that once the vessel has waited and 24 hours have passed, one may use it even lekhatchila (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ח).

The Taz's כלל, in four cases. The Taz sums up his own position under the heading כלל העולה: where there is a ספק ספיקא — that is, when the object was not returned the same day — if it was left deliberately, the vessel is forbidden and requires hagala, earthenware needing to be broken; if it was forgotten, the vessel is permitted, but if it can be kashered one kashers it, and earthenware is permitted; whereas where there is no ספק ספיקא — the object returned the same day — it is forbidden even bediavad, by law (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ח). The Arukh HaShulchan leans to the Rama and the Shach: he sees no reason to forbid bediavad on a mere apprehension; lekhatchila it is indeed forbidden to act so while relying on a 24-hour wait, but bediavad it is permitted — and he adds the precision that applies to all our tableware: all this concerns only pots and large bowls, where cooking or pouring from a כלי ראשון may be feared; but plates, spoons, forks and knives, whose use is in a כלי שני — and all the more so what is used cold — he rinses, and it is permitted (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף כ׳).

c) Tableware washed at a non-Jew's (seif 10)

קערות ששלח ישראל לעובד כוכבים עם מאכל ושהו שם אם ניכר בהם המאכל ששלח הישראל בתוכם מותר ואם לאו אסור אם רגילים להדיח הכלים בחמין דחיישינן שמא הודח עם כלי איסור:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:י
The most current seif of the siman. The Mehaber does not forbid here because the non-Jew may have eaten from our bowls — that concern, says the Arukh HaShulchan, is only lekhatchila — but because dishes are washed in hot water, and ours may have been washed together with forbidden vessels. That second concern holds even bediavad, for there is material evidence: the bowl came back clean and not dirty. The Arukh HaShulchan writes this in the name of the Pri Chadash (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף י״ח).
And what of נותן טעם בר נותן טעם? The Arukh HaShulchan raises the question himself: at siman 95 seif 3, the same author permits meat bowls washed in a dairy cauldron when no fat is stuck to them, on the grounds of נ״ט בר נ״ט. Why not here? Two answers, which he gives one after the other or together: in outright prohibition, נ״ט בר נ״ט does not apply; and in any case their vessels have fat stuck to them after the meal. But he adds the decisive practical distinction: summary — if there is a doubt whether he washed them together in a כלי שני, it is permitted bediavad (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף י״ט).

d) Buying vessels (seifim 11-12)

כלי סעודה שביד העובד כוכבים ומסיח לפי תומו ואומר שחדשים הם ויראה שהוא כמו שהוא אומר מותר לקנותם ממנו: הגה ויש מחמירים ואומרים שאינו נאמן ואין ליקח כלים מן העובד כוכבים רק כשמוכר הרבה כלים וקונה כלי בין הכלים (רשב״א בשם ר׳ יונה) וכן נוהגין לכתחלה אבל במקום הדחק כגון שנתארח בבית עובד כוכבים ואין לו כלים נוהגין כסברא הראשונה וכן עיקר ועיין לקמן סימן קל״ז:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:יא (המחבר וההגה)
Why does the non-Jew's word suffice here? The Shach explains it from the siman itself: since their vessels are presumed not to be of the day, only a rabbinic prohibition remains — and a non-Jew who speaks unprompted (מסיח לפי תומו) is trustworthy on a rabbinic prohibition, as at siman 98 (ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק י). The Rama tightens the practice: lekhatchila one buys only from someone who sells many vessels, taking one vessel among the others; but in pressing need — the traveller lodged without dishes — one follows the first opinion, וכן עיקר. The Arukh HaShulchan limits the stringency to a private seller: from a shopkeeper there is no concern at all, since a shopkeeper generally sells new goods (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף כ״ב).
יש מי שאומר שקערות הבאות מעבר לים שקערורות ירקרקות או אדמדמות אסור להשתמש בהן לעולם בחמין מפני שאינן חדשות שהעובדי כוכבים משתמשים בהם ואינו ניכר:

— שולחן ערוך יו״ד קכ״ב:יב
The last seif deals with imported bowls, hollow and glazed green or red: they are not new, prior use is invisible, and the Mehaber forbids them with hot food forever. It is the one place in the siman where waiting 24 hours is of no use: this is not a problem of time but of ignorance about what was absorbed, in a material that cannot be kashered.

Le-ma'asse (vessels entrusted, washed, bought). (1) Tableware entrusted to a repairer, a craftsman, a non-Jewish neighbour: put a mark on it, and avoid retrieving it the same day. (2) Tableware returned clean from a non-kosher place: the very cleanliness is the evidence that gives concern, for it signals a hot wash. (3) Second-hand tableware: newness declared by the seller suffices by law, the practice asks for more, and old glazed ceramic does not become fit for hot use again. Each of these cases depends on the material, on hot or cold use, on כלי ראשון or כלי שני. For the application to your situation, consult your Rav.

9. פסיקת הספרדים בזמננו — contemporary Sephardic psika

Methodological note. The streams that follow extend the principles of siman 122 set out above to contemporary cases. They are not part of the siman's corpus; they are cited as recognised streams of psika, without a precise responsum reference, and to be confirmed with a Rav before any application.

Contemporary Sephardic psika (the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef — Yabia Omer, Yalkut Yosef) starts from the Mehaber as he stands: נותן טעם לפגם מותר, מעת לעת = 24 hours since the cooking of the prohibited food, forbidden lekhatchila / permitted bediavad, and the two presumptions of seif 6 and seif 7. It is known for relying more readily on the siman's ספק ספיקא when a rabbinic prohibition is to be dismissed after the fact, and on the distinction between כלי ראשון and כלי שני which the Arukh HaShulchan also formulates.
Concrete caseSephardic orientation (to be verified)
Food cooked by mistake in a non-kosher vessel unused for 24 hThe dish is permitted bediavad (seif 6 in the text itself); the vessel remains forbidden and requires kashering (siman 121).
A doubtful vessel at homeThe presumption of seif 7; but one asks the master of the house if he is present (Pitchei Teshuva sk 6 in the name of the Be'er Sheva).
An acidic or sharp dishNo נותן טעם לפגם (Rama, seif 3); one does not rely on the 24 hours.
Cutlery and plates used as a כלי שניLighter treatment than pots — rinsing (the Arukh HaShulchan formulates it; Sephardic poskim reason likewise about כלי שני).

10. פסיקת האשכנזים — Ashkenazi psika

Methodological note. Here, unlike in other simanim, the Ashkenazi stream is documented in the corpus itself: the Rama, the Taz, the Shach, the Pitchei Teshuva and above all the Arukh HaShulchan, who devotes 22 seifim to our siman and deals explicitly with the situations of his day. The references below are real and verifiable.

QuestionAshkenazi position, with its source
Earthenware after 24 hNo leniency: earthenware was not distinguished from metal — וחלילה לומר כן (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ב׳); likewise Pitchei Teshuva sk 1, against the sages of Venice.
An absorbed rabbinic prohibitionלא פלוג רבנן — no easing (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ג׳), against the doubt raised by the Noda BiYehuda (reported by the Pitchei Teshuva sk 2).
Twelve monthsNo leniency for ordinary prohibitions; leniency for the chametz of Pesach (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ד׳ · Chacham Tzvi 75).
An unrinsed potThe Tur and the Shulchan Aruch require rinsing; but in an ordinary kitchen the deposit is negligible and one reckons נותן טעם לפגם in every case (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ח׳).
Vessels returned from a non-Jew's houseThe Taz forbids even bediavad when they come back the same day (ט״ז יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ח–ט); the Shach (ס״ק ח) and the Arukh HaShulchan (סעיף כ׳) follow the Rama and permit bediavad, and place plates, spoons, forks and knives under simple rinsing.
Eating from their vessels on the strength of the presumptionNo — an explicit warning (ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ט״ז).
Chabad — only through real sources. The Shulchan Aruch HaRav does not cover Yoreh De'ah; there is therefore no "Da'at HaRav" on siman 122. For Chabad practice in these matters one turns to the responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek and to the Sefer HaMinhagim Chabad when they deal explicitly with a point — and one refrains from attributing to the Admur HaZaken a ruling he did not write here.

11. מקרים מודרניים — the 24 hours in our kitchens

How siman 122 illuminates our practice. Four tools of the siman serve to read modern cases: (1) the measure — 24 hours since the cooking of the prohibited food (seif 2); (2) the lekhatchila / bediavad gap — the Sages' decree does not remove the Torah's leniency, it forbids using it deliberately (seif 2 and seif 6); (3) the two cancellers of the pgam — visible ill-rinsed residue, and a sharp dish (seif 3); (4) the presumptions — their vessels and ours (seifim 6-7). What is not in this siman — how to kasher, which material, which temperature — belongs to siman 121.
Modern caseTool from the simanOrientation (to be confirmed with your Rav)
A vessel has not been used for 24 hoursSeif 2 (מעת לעת)The 24 hours are counted from the cooking of the prohibited food, not from the last wash. This does not permit using it knowingly: the Sages' decree stands (seif 2). It serves not to forbid after the fact.
One cooked by mistake in a non-kosher vesselSeif 6 (בדיעבד)If the vessel was not "of the day", the dish is permitted bediavad. The vessel itself remains forbidden and requires kashering (siman 121). If the dish was acidic or sharp, the leniency falls away (seif 3).
An acidic or spicy dish (vinegar, lemon, mustard, chilli, brine)Seif 3 (דברים חריפים)The taste becomes לשבח again: neither the 24 hours nor the presumption saves the dish. A little seasoning does not suffice to make a dish חריף.
Kosher dishes washed with non-kosher dishes (sink, basin, dishwasher)Seif 10 · Arukh HaShulchan 122:18-19This is the case of seif 10: the risk is not what the non-Jew ate from them, but the joint hot wash — and that concern holds even bediavad. The Arukh HaShulchan distinguishes: washing in a כלי שני plus a doubt as to the fact → permitted bediavad. A dishwasher that heats the water inside its own tub is not a כלי שני; the question, for a machine, must be put as such to a Rav.
Soap and detergentSeif 1 (נותן טעם לפגם) — contemporary applicationThe siman supplies the principle (a spoiled taste does not forbid) but says nothing about detergent. Contemporary poskim debate whether dish soap renders the taste pagum to the point of counting as פגום or even נפסל מאכילת כלב, and they do not all draw the same conclusions. This point is not settled from the text of the siman: it is a question for your Rav.
Oven, hob, grill, planchaSeif 2 (24 h) · Rambam MA 17:3 (ליבון) · siman 121Siman 122 supplies only the temporal dimension: an oven or a rack unused for 24 hours is נותן טעם לפגם, with the same lekhatchila / bediavad gap. Kashering belongs elsewhere: the Rambam places spits and grills under ליבון באור — מלבנן באור עד שתנשר קלפתן (רמב״ם הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ז הלכה ג) — and modern detail (pyrolytic oven, ceramic hob, induction, steam oven) is nowhere treated in our siman. To be put to a Rav.
Eating in a non-kosher place "since their vessels are not of the day"Seif 6 · Arukh HaShulchan 122:16No. The presumption is a bediavad leniency; the Arukh HaShulchan explicitly rejects using it to eat from their vessels, and notes that where food is served at all hours they are certainly "of the day".
Vessels left with a repairer, a craftsman, a non-Jewish cleanerSeif 9Put a mark on them; avoid retrieving them the same day. After 24 hours the Rama, the Shach and the Arukh HaShulchan are lenient; the Taz is strict even bediavad when the object returns the same day.
Buying second-hand tablewareSeifim 11-12A seller who spontaneously states that it is new is trustworthy by law (Shach sk 10); the lekhatchila practice is more demanding (Rama). Old glazed ceramic remains forbidden with hot food (seif 12). Do not forget tevilat kelim, which is another siman (ק״כ · 120).

Le-ma'asse. These situations blend questions of fact — which material, which prohibition, which temperature, כלי ראשון or כלי שני, a sharp dish or not, lekhatchila or after the fact — that only your Rav can decide upon seeing the case. The practical rule: reconstruct precisely what was absorbed, when, into what, and at what heat, wash nothing and heat nothing in the meantime, then consult your Rav.

12. סיכום מעשי — summary and tables

טבלה — the measures of the siman, in practice

QuestionMeasure (in practice)Source
Definition of אינו בן יומו24 hours (מעת לעת) since the cooking of the prohibited foodשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב ; ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף א׳
Status of such a vesselPermitted מן התורה ; forbidden מדרבנן lekhatchilaעבודה זרה ע״ו ע״א ; שו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ב
Food cooked in it by mistakePermitted bediavadשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו
The vessel itselfRemains forbidden — kashering (siman 121)ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ב׳
Earthenware (חרס)No distinction ; no leniency after 24 hoursערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ב׳ ; פתחי תשובה ס״ק א
An absorbed rabbinic prohibitionThe same — לא פלוגערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ג׳ ; פתחי תשובה ס״ק ב
Twelve monthsNo leniency (except chametz on Pesach)ערוך השולחן יורה דעה קכ״ב סעיף ד׳ ; פתחי תשובה ס״ק ג
An unrinsed vessel, residue בעיןNot spoiled ; but sixty against what is stuck sufficesשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ג + הגה
A חריף dishNo נותן טעם לפגם — forbiddenהגה יו״ד קכ״ב:ג ; ערוך השולחן סעיף ט׳
A חריף prohibition, then 24 h, then a mild dishPermittedהגה יו״ד קכ״ב:ג ; ש״ך יו״ד קכ״ב ס״ק ב
בשר בחלב + water heated before nightfallThe 24-hour count restartsשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ד ; ט״ז ס״ק ב
A large vessel, איסור מועטThe Mehaber permits ; we do not rely on itשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ה ; ט״ז ס״ק ג ; ש״ך ס״ק ג
סתם כלים (theirs and ours)Presumed not "of the day" — a bediavad leniencyשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ו–ז ; ש״ך ס״ק ד
A forbidden vessel mixed with othersבטל ברובשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:ח ; ערוך השולחן סעיף י״ז
Tableware left at a non-Jew'sA mark ; hagala ; 24 h ease it (Taz: strict)הגה יו״ד קכ״ב:ט ; ט״ז ס״ק ח ; ש״ך ס״ק ח
Tableware hot-washed with forbidden vesselsForbidden even bediavad ; כלי שני easesשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:י ; ערוך השולחן סעיפים י״ח–י״ט
Buying tableware from a non-Jewמסיח לפי תומו suffices by law ; the practice is stricterשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:יא + הגה ; ש״ך ס״ק י
Old glazed ceramicNever with hot foodשו״ע יו״ד קכ״ב:יב

טבלה — who says what (the nossei kelim of the siman)

PosekDecisive contribution (anchored in the corpus)
Mehaber (seifim 1-12)The principle (s.1); the 24 hours and the decree (s.2); rinsing (s.3); meat-and-milk and the restarted count (s.4); איסור מועט in a large vessel (s.5); the two presumptions (s.6-7); ביטול ברוב (s.8); deposit with a non-Jew (s.9); washed tableware (s.10); purchase (s.11); ceramic from overseas (s.12).
Rama (הגה on s.3, s.6, s.9, s.11)Sixty against the stuck residue; דברים חריפים and its limit ("not חריף for a little spice"); the reverse direction permitted; water heated for kneading; the already-made product = דיעבד; the mark on entrusted vessels, the half day, the 24-hour wait, ובמקום צורך יש להקל בדיעבד; the practice of buying among many vessels, and the traveller's leniency.
Taz (Turei Zahav, ס״ק א–ט)ס״ק א: the מרדה, the leniency of siman 108; ס״ק ב: חתיכה עצמה נעשית נבילה, the reason for seif 4; ס״ק ג: at siman 99 s.7 we do not hold like seif 5; ס״ק ד: the ספק ספיקא, the refutation of the Maharshal, the reservation about the non-Jew who speaks of his own accord, the קנס of the Darkhei Moshe; ס״ק ז: each object according to its use — wine vessels are stricter than cooking vessels; ס״ק ח: the great כלל in four cases and the refusal of bediavad when the object returns the same day; ס״ק ט: לענין הלכה לא קיימא לן כן.
Shach (Siftei Kohen, ס״ק א–י)ס״ק א: everything up to the end of seif 4 is explained at siman 103; ס״ק ב: the sharp dish in the name of the Orchot Chaim; ס״ק ג: the Ra'ah, the Tur and the Bach against seif 5; ס״ק ד: the ספק ספיקא and the debate with the Maharshal; ס״ק ה: water heated to be drunk; ס״ק ז: a duplicate of siman 102; ס״ק ח: a long defence of the Rama, אין חוששין בדיעבד = permitted even lekhatchila after 24 hours; ס״ק ט: people no longer guard against servants, since the Jew comes and goes; ס״ק י: מסיח לפי תומו is trustworthy on a rabbinic prohibition.
Pitchei Teshuva (ס״ק א–ז)ס״ק א: earthenware after 24 hours — refused, even בהפסד מרובה; ס״ק ב: the Noda BiYehuda's doubt about a rabbinic prohibition; ס״ק ג: the Chacham Tzvi and the twelve months; ס״ק ד: where sellers are poor and own but one vessel, the presumption falls; ס״ק ו: the Be'er Sheva — our vessels only when the owner is absent; ס״ק ז: knives found in a public thoroughfare.
Rambam (הלכות מאכלות אסורות פרק י״ז)הלכה א–ב: the pot of the day and the מדברי סופרים לא יבשל בה לעולם; הלכה ג–ד: the classification of kasherings (cold → הדחה, hot → הגעלה, fire → ליבון) and the reason — שכל השומן שבהן נותן טעם לפגם הוא.
Arukh HaShulchan (Yoreh De'ah 122, 22 seifim)The modern commentary on the siman: the 24-hour measure (s.1), the absence of leniency for earthenware (s.2), for a rabbinic prohibition (s.3), for twelve months (s.4); the negligible deposit of ordinary kitchens (s.8); sharp dishes (s.9); the presumption and its reason (s.13), the bediavad (s.14), today's craftsmen (s.15), the warning against abusing the presumption (s.16); the mixture (s.17); washed tableware and נ״ט בר נ״ט (s.18-19); cutlery in a כלי שני (s.20); the shopkeeper (s.22).

טבלה — contemporary streams of psika (outside the corpus, to be verified)

Sephardic: the school of Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer), Yalkut Yosef. They extend the Mehaber: the 24 hours, the lekhatchila / bediavad gap, the two presumptions, and the כלי ראשון / כלי שני distinction for dishes and cutlery.
Ashkenazi: the Rama, the Taz, the Shach, the Pitchei Teshuva, and the Arukh HaShulchan — the last being, on this siman, the best documented and directly checkable contemporary source. The poskim of later generations (Igrot Moshe and others) deal with the modern questions — dishwashers, detergent, ovens — without our being able to attribute a precise reference to them here: to be asked of your Rav.
Chabad: no Shulchan Aruch HaRav on YD. Only real sources are cited — responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek, the Sefer HaMinhagim — when they deal explicitly with the point.

Sefaria links (text and nossei kelim)

Shulchan Aruch YD 122: 122:1 · 122:2 · 122:6 · 122:10
Taz (Turei Zahav): 122 s.k. 2 · 122 s.k. 8
Shach (Siftei Kohen): 122 s.k. 4 · 122 s.k. 8
Pitchei Teshuva: 122 s.k. 1
Arukh HaShulchan: YD 122:16
Rambam: Forbidden Foods 17:2
Gemara: Avodah Zarah 67b · Avodah Zarah 76a

👈 הלכה למעשה — the golden rule of this level

  1. In substance, hold on to the single principle: a taste that spoils does not render forbidden — and its measure in vessels: 24 hours since the cooking of the prohibited food.
  2. In practice, that measure is a bediavad leniency, never a permission to act: the Sages forbade cooking in it lekhatchila, with no distinction of material, no easing for a rabbinic prohibition, and with twelve months changing nothing.
  3. Two things cancel the pgam: visible ill-rinsed residue, and a sharp or acidic dish. Facing either, do not count on the 24 hours.
  4. Two presumptions ease matters after the fact — their vessels and ours are not "of the day" — but they serve only not to forbid what is done; the Arukh HaShulchan expressly forbids turning them into a licence to eat from their vessels.
  5. And for every real case — which material, which heat, כלי ראשון or כלי שני, detergent, dishwasher, oven — halakha le-ma'asse goes through your Rav: consult your Rav.

← Level 3 — Synthesis ↑ Siman קכ״ב — contents
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAAT · הרב יוסף חיים סממה
תלמיד חכם · מעביר שיעורים בהלכה ובחסידות
פסק והלכה למעשה בדין נותן טעם לפגם בכלים · סימן קכ״ב · ⚖️ Level 4 — Halakha le-ma'asse
⚠️ This content is for study. The contemporary streams of psika cited (Sephardic and Ashkenazi) are landmarks, not a personal ruling. For any practical application (לְמַעֲשֶׂה), consult a qualified Rav.

DAAT דעת — © 5786 / 2026 · Back to home · Siman קכ״ב · ♥ Support

📖Join the khavroutha