Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7-14

Sugya Map

The sugya at hand, as elucidated by the Arukh HaShulchan in Orach Chaim 261:7-14, grapples with the multifaceted requirements and exceptions concerning tevilat keilim (immersion of vessels) purchased from a non-Jew. The discussion pivots on the tension between the stricture of the gezeirah and practical exigencies, particularly those arising on Shabbat or in sha'at hadchak (a time of pressing need).

• Issue: The permissibility of using new vessels or those used by non-Jews without prior tevila, especially when tevila is impossible or problematic (e.g., Erev Shabbat, lack of mikvah). Key distinctions are drawn between different types of vessels, uses (ordinary vs. mitzvah), and the nature of the issur.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • May one use a new vessel for Kiddush or Havdalah on Shabbat/Yom Tov if tevila was overlooked or impossible?
  • What is the status of a vessel borrowed from a non-Jew, or one that a non-Jew immersed?
  • How does hachana (preparation from weekday to Shabbat) interact with tevilat keilim?
  • Is there a difference in severity between a vessel requiring tevila because it's new from a non-Jew and one used by a non-Jew?
• Primary Sources:
  • Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7-14
  • Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chaim 261:7-8
  • Gemara Avodah Zarah 75b-76a
  • Tosefta Avodah Zarah 5:14
  • Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:5-6
  • Rema, Orach Chaim 261:7

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan, with characteristic breadth, navigates the nuances of tevilat keilim.

• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7: "וכיון שצריך טבילה, אסור להשתמש בה כלל קודם טבילה, דהוי כטבול יום מדרבנן. ואם אין לו מים לטבול, וצריך לכלי זה בשבת לצורך מצוה, כגון לכוס של קידוש או להבדלה – יש מתירים להשתמש בו עראי בלי טבילה."[^1]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "דהוי כטבול יום מדרבנן" frames the prohibition of using an untoveled vessel as analogous to a tovul yom (one who immersed but is still tamei until nightfall), albeit rabbinically. This implies a milder form of tumah or lack of taharah, which might allow for leniency in sha'at hadchak. The AHS then cites "יש מתירים" (some permit), indicating a machloket or a da'at yachid that forms the basis for leniency for mitzvah purposes.
• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:8: "אבל אם הוא לצורך סעודה, אפילו אם אין לו כלי אחר – אסור."[^2]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: This sharp distinction ("אבל אם הוא לצורך סעודה... אסור") highlights the severity of the prohibition for mundane uses, even when no alternative exists. The mitzvah distinction is critical.
• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:11: "יש מי שאומר שכלים שאולים מן העכו"ם או שנתן לו במתנה על מנת להחזיר – אינם צריכין טבילה, דכיון דלאו דידיה הוא – לא חלה עליו טבילה."[^3]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The principle "כיון דלאו דידיה הוא – לא חלה עליו טבילה" (since it's not his, tevila does not apply to it) provides a fundamental conceptual distinction between ownership and temporary use, influencing the scope of the gezeirah.
• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:13: "ואם טבלו עכו"ם, אין שמו טבילה, כיון דאין העכו"ם מצווה על טבילה."[^4]
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: This statement underscores that tevila is a mitzvah requiring a ben Yisrael to perform, not merely a physical act of immersion. It's a chiyuv gagri, not a property of the water itself in removing a tumah that a non-Jew could facilitate.

Readings

Rambam: Tevila as Acquisition of Kedusha

The Rambam, in his Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot, frames tevilat keilim not merely as a removal of tumah but as an acquisition of kedusha or a preparation for permissible use within the Jewish domain. He states explicitly that "כל כלי סעודה העשוין למאכל, בין כלי מתכות בין כלי זכוכית, שלקחן ישראל מן העכו"ם, בין קנה בין קיבל במתנה – צריך לטובלן במים ארבעים סאה, ואחר כך מותר להשתמש בהן."[^5]

• Chiddush: Rambam's chiddush lies in his understanding that the gezeirah of tevilat keilim is to remove the vessel from the "dominion" of tumah and bring it into the "dominion" of kedusha (or taharah). This is why even a new vessel from a non-Jew requires tevila, not because it's tamei in the traditional sense, but because it needs to be mukped (sanctified/prepared) for Jewish use. This perspective makes the prohibition against using an untoveled vessel quite stringent, as it's not merely a matter of tumah but of lacking the requisite kedusha. Consequently, the Rambam would likely be very strict regarding any leniency, as the vessel is fundamentally unsuitable for use until tevila. The AHS's reference to "כטבול יום מדרבנן" might be a slight softening of this, hinting that while it's not fully tahor, it's not inherently tamei in the same way as a sheretz.

Rema: Sha'at Hadchak and Mitzvah Use

The Rema, in his glosses on the Shulchan Arukh, provides a crucial practical leniency that the Arukh HaShulchan adopts and expands upon. Concerning the use of an untoveled vessel on Shabbat for a mitzvah, the Rema states, "מיהו אם אין לו כלי אחר וצריך לכלי זה בשבת לצורך מצוה, כגון לכוס של קידוש או להבדלה, יש מתירים להשתמש בו עראי בלי טבילה, דהוי כטבול יום מדרבנן."[^6]

• Chiddush: The Rema's chiddush is the introduction of a sha'at hadchak leniency for mitzvah purposes. He leverages the Gemara's discussion (Avodah Zarah 75b) about tevilat keilim being a gezeirah akin to tovul yom. Since a tovul yom is permitted for certain mitzvah needs (e.g., terumah in a sha'at hadchak), the Rema extends this leniency to the use of an untoveled vessel for a mitzvah on Shabbat. This implies that the rabbinic issur of tevilat keilim is not as severe as to override a mitzvah in pressing circumstances, especially when the usage is arai (temporary/non-permanent). The AHS cites this halacha directly, reinforcing its normative weight, but also emphasizes that this leniency does not extend to ordinary meal consumption. This distinction between mitzvah and reshut (optional) use is central to the Rema's approach.

Friction

The Knot: Kli Akum vs. New Vessel for Mitzvah in Sha'at Hadchak

A significant point of friction arises from the Arukh HaShulchan's nuanced treatment of sha'at hadchak leniencies. He permits the temporary use of a new vessel for a mitzvah (like Kiddush) if no other vessel is available on Shabbat, citing the Rema's position that it's "כטבול יום מדרבנן."[^7] However, when discussing a vessel previously used by a non-Jew ("כלי ששתמש בו עכו"ם") which requires tevila, the AHS does not explicitly extend this leniency. Indeed, a different leniency exists for borrowed kli akum—that they don't require tevila at all since they are not owned by the Jew[^8]. The kushya is: Why the differential treatment? If the issur for a new vessel is mid'Rabbanan and akin to a tovul yom, allowing leniency for mitzvah in sha'at hadchak, why would the same not apply, or even more so, to a vessel that was used by a non-Jew, where the issur might be perceived as similar, or even less stringent by some, given the debates on its source?

The Untying: Distinguishing the Gezeirah

The resolution lies in a deeper understanding of the nature of the gezeirah for different types of vessels.

1. New Vessel from Akum: The gezeirah here is to elevate the vessel from its status under non-Jewish ownership to kedushat Yisrael. It's not about removing tumah in the classic sense, but rather a tikkun for the vessel to be used by a Jew. The Rema and AHS allow for sha'at hadchak for a mitzvah because the issur is comparatively lighter ("כטבול יום מדרבנן"). This implies that while the vessel should be mutkan (prepared), its lack of tikkun is not a fundamental issur cheftza (prohibition on the object itself) that would override a mitzvah need. The usage is arai, not establishing it as a Jewish vessel.

2. Vessel Used by Akum: This category is more complex. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 75b) implies that the tevila is because the vessel absorbed non-kosher food or was used for idolatry. While the AHS doesn't focus on this, Rishonim like the Rosh (Avodah Zarah 5:16) understand the gezeirah for vessels used by non-Jews as being related to tumah or balua (absorbed non-kosher taste). If the vessel actually absorbed non-kosher food, it would require hagalah (purging) in addition to tevila. If it merely needs tevila due to its status as having been used by a non-Jew, the issur could be perceived as more robust than a merely "new" vessel.

3. Borrowed Vessel from Akum: The AHS (and SA 261:11) explicitly states that borrowed vessels from a non-Jew do not require tevila, "כיון דלאו דידיה הוא – לא חלה עליו טבילה."[^9] This is a critical distinction. The gezeirah of tevilat keilim applies only to vessels that become k'inyan Yisrael (Jewish property). A borrowed vessel, remaining the property of the non-Jew, does not enter this category, and thus the entire gezeirah of tevilat keilim does not apply at all. Therefore, there's no issur to begin with, and no need for sha'at hadchak leniency.

The terutz is that the AHS is not silent about sha'at hadchak for kli shenishtameish bo akum (used by a non-Jew); rather, he addresses the issue by clarifying that borrowed vessels are exempt from tevila entirely. For vessels that do require tevila (e.g., purchased, then used by an akum), the sha'at hadchak leniency for mitzvah use for a new vessel would likely apply, as the issur is still mid'Rabbanan. The AHS specifically contrasts "new" with "used by akum" in terms of ownership and the chiyuv of tevila, not necessarily the nature of the issur once tevila is required. The leniency for a mitzvah in sha'at hadchak is a general principle for issurei d'Rabbanan that are not inherently severe, especially when the usage is arai.

Intertext

Bamidbar 31:23 – The Biblical Root of Vessel Immersion

The concept of immersing vessels that come from non-Jewish ownership finds its earliest textual echoes in the Torah's directive regarding the spoils of Midian: "כָּל דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר אַךְ בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם."[^10]

• This verse, interpreted by Chazal (Avodah Zarah 75b) as the source for hagalah (purging by fire) and tevila (immersion in water) for vessels acquired from non-Jews, is foundational. While the Gemara extends this to newly purchased vessels from a gentile and defines the specific halachot as mid'Rabbanan, the pasuk provides the conceptual framework for the transformation of gentile vessels for Jewish use. The AHS, by discussing vessels used by non-Jews, implicitly connects to this original source, even as he details the rabbinic enactments.

Iggerot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:63 – Sha'at Hadchak and Hachana

The Arukh HaShulchan's discussion of hachana from Erev Shabbat to Shabbat, specifically regarding tevilat keilim (AHS 261:7), resonates with broader halachic principles concerning hachana and sha'at hadchak. Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Iggerot Moshe, frequently addresses situations of sha'at hadchak where rabbinic prohibitions might be relaxed. For instance, regarding hachana itself, he often distinguishes between a direct act of hachana for Shabbat performed on Erev Shabbat which is problematic, and an act that incidentally benefits Shabbat but is primarily for a weekday need or mitzvah. While Rav Moshe's teshuva might not directly address tevilat keilim, his methodology of weighing the severity of a rabbinic issur against a mitzvah or pressing need, particularly when hachana is a factor, provides an important intertextual lens. He allows, in certain cases, for an action done on Erev Shabbat that facilitates a mitzvah on Shabbat, even if it entails some hachana, provided it's not a direct, prohibited melacha. This aligns with the AHS's pragmatic approach in allowing tevila to be done even close to Shabbat if absolutely necessary, lest the mitzvah of Kiddush be compromised.

Psak/Practice

The Arukh HaShulchan's synthesis of Rishonim and Acharonim, particularly the Rema's leniencies, forms the bedrock of normative Ashkenazi halacha regarding tevilat keilim in sha'at hadchak.

The practical psak that emerges is multifaceted:

• No Tevila for Borrowed Vessels: If a vessel is merely borrowed from a non-Jew, it requires no tevila whatsoever. This is a significant leniency, allowing for temporary use without concern[^11].
• Leniency for Mitzvah in Sha'at Hadchak: For a new vessel requiring tevila, if one finds oneself on Shabbat/Yom Tov without a properly toveled vessel for a mitzvah (e.g., Kiddush, Havdalah), and no other suitable vessel is available, one may use the untoveled vessel temporarily (arai) for the mitzvah[^12]. This is rooted in the mid'Rabbanan nature of the issur and its analogy to a tovul yom.
• No Leniency for Mundane Use: This sha'at hadchak leniency is strictly limited to mitzvah purposes. Using an untoveled vessel for ordinary eating or drinking, even if no other vessel is available, remains prohibited[^13].
• A Non-Jew Cannot Perform Tevila: The act of tevila is a mitzvah incumbent upon a Jew. A non-Jew's immersion of a vessel is ineffective for Jewish use[^14].
• Hachana on Erev Shabbat: While tevila should ideally be done well before Shabbat, if one forgot or only acquired the vessel shortly before Shabbat, it may be toveled on Erev Shabbat even close to shkiyah, as it's not a melacha and is for a mitzvah (or general Shabbat enjoyment) that would otherwise be hampered[^15].

Meta-psak heuristics here demonstrate a classic balancing act: the chazal did not intend for their gezeirot to undermine mitzvot d'Oraita or even basic Shabbat enjoyment in dire circumstances. The principle of kalut issur d'Rabbanan b'sha'at hadchak l'tzorech mitzvah (leniency for a rabbinic prohibition in a time of need for a mitzvah) is clearly at play, but with precise limitations.

Takeaway

The Arukh HaShulchan meticulously dissects the halachot of tevilat keilim, revealing that while the gezeirah is broad, its application is nuanced, allowing for critical leniencies in sha'at hadchak for mitzvah purposes, especially when the vessel's status is mid'Rabbanan. The distinction between ownership and temporary use fundamentally redefines the scope of the chiyuv.

---

[^1]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7 [^2]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:8 [^3]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:11 [^4]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:13 [^5]: Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:5 [^6]: Rema, Orach Chaim 261:7 [^7]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7 [^8]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:11 [^9]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:11 [^10]: Bamidbar 31:23 [^11]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:11 [^12]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7 [^13]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:8 [^14]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:13 [^15]: Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 261:7