Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 268:17-270:1

Sugya Map

The sugya of tevilat keilim (immersion of vessels) acquired from non-Jews is a foundational component of kashrut and kedushah in the Jewish home. The Arukh HaShulchan (AHS) masterfully synthesizes Rishonim and Acharonim, articulating the practical halacha with characteristic clarity.

• Core Issue: The obligation to immerse vessels purchased or acquired from a non-Jew before use. This obligation is mid'Rabbanan, an asmachta from the purification process of keilim captured from Midian¹.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Which materials require tevilah (metal, glass, some plastics)?
  • What constitutes a "new" vessel or "acquisition" triggering the mitzvah?
  • The conditions for reciting a bracha.
  • The status of vessels bought for resale, gifts, inheritance, or those undergoing repair.
  • The conceptual underpinning: Is tevilah about purifying the keli from gentile use, or transforming its kedusha for Jewish use?
• Primary Sources:
  • Tanakh: Bamidbar 31:23.
  • Midrash: Sifrei Bamidbar 12:3 (on Bamidbar 31:23)².
  • Talmud: Avodah Zarah 75b-76a (discussing the materials)³; Chullin 37b (regarding the source of the gezeirah)⁴.
  • Rishonim: Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:5-6; Rashba, Teshuvot 1:194.
  • Shulchan Aruch: Yoreh De'ah 120:1-8 (the primary locus for halachot tevilat keilim).
  • Acharonim: Taz, Shach, Magen Avraham, Pri Megadim (all extensively cited and discussed by AHS).

---

Text Snapshot

The Arukh HaShulchan navigates the intricacies of tevilat keilim by first establishing the basic rules and then delving into specific scenarios.

• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 268:17: "כל כלי מתכות וכלי זכוכית שנקנו מן העכו"ם בין חדשים בין ישנים צריכים טבילה במקוה, שנאמר (במדבר ל"א כ"ג) כל דבר אשר יבא באש וגו' אך במי נדה יתחטא וגו' וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים והסמיכו חכמים ענין זה לכלים שקונה ישראל מעכו"ם"⁵.
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "הסמיכו חכמים ענין זה" (the Sages juxtaposed this matter) is classic asmachta language, underscoring the mid'Rabbanan nature of the mitzvah, despite its Biblical allusion. It specifies "מתכות וכלי זכוכית" (metal vessels and glass vessels) as the primary categories, explicitly including both new and used items.
• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 269:1: "אבל כלי עץ ואבן ועצם וחרס אינן צריכים טבילה"⁶.
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: This line provides the crucial negative definition, delineating materials exempt from tevilah, based on the gemara in Avodah Zarah 75b.
• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 269:5: "הקונה כלים מעכו"ם למוכרן מיד לאחרים, פשוט הוא דאין צריך לטבול... דכיון שאין בדעתו להשתמש בהם לא חל עליו שם כלי"⁷.
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Arukh HaShulchan's strong declaration "פשוט הוא" (it is simple) masks a significant machloket among Acharonim. His reasoning, "דכיון שאין בדעתו להשתמש בהם לא חל עליו שם כלי" (since he does not intend to use them, the designation of 'vessel' does not apply to him), is key to understanding his yesod for the mitzvah. It implies tevilah is triggered by intent for personal use, not mere ownership.
• Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 270:1: "כלי שנשבר ונתרפא... ונעשה כלי חדש... טעון טבילה בברכה... ואם לא נתרפא אלא בתיקון קל... אין צריך טבילה"⁸.
  • Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: This addresses the intricate question of keilim chadashim (new vessels) after repair. The distinction between "נעשה כלי חדש" (became a new vessel) and "תיקון קל" (minor repair) is the crux, determining if the original kedushat Yisrael (Jewish sanctity) is lost and a new tevilah is required.

---

Readings

The Arukh HaShulchan engages with a host of Rishonim and Acharonim, offering a nuanced psak. We'll focus on a few who laid the groundwork or presented critical machloktot.

Rambam: The Asmachta and Scope of Materials

The Rambam, in Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:5-6, provides a concise yet comprehensive statement on tevilat keilim. He establishes the mid'Rabbanan nature of the mitzvah, grounding it in the asmachta from Bamidbar 31:23, as expounded in the Sifrei.

• "כל כלי מתכות וזכוכית שקנה ישראל מן העכו"ם בין חדשים בין ישנים, צריך להטבילן במקוה... ודבר זה מדברי סופרים הוא, והן למדוהו מן הכתוב: 'כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש והטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא וגו' וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים'"⁹.
• Chiddush: The Rambam is pivotal in defining both the source (asmachta) and the precise scope of materials. He explicitly lists only "מתכות וזכוכית" (metals and glass), excluding wood, stone, bone, and earthenware. His clarity on the mid'Rabbanan status, despite the Biblical allusion, is a fundamental yesod, impacting the stringency of various halachot (e.g., safek de'Rabbanan l'kula). This forms the baseline for the Arukh HaShulchan's initial statements in 268:17 and 269:1.

Taz: Intent vs. Ownership for the Merchant

The Taz (Rav David HaLevi Segal), in his commentary on Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 120, grapples with the status of vessels acquired by a Jewish merchant for resale. The Shulchan Aruch itself is somewhat ambiguous, leading to a machloket between the Taz and Shach.

• Taz, Yoreh De'ah 120:1 s.k. 1: Discusses a case where a Jew purchases a vessel from a goy via a Jewish agent. He argues that even if the agent is Jewish, if the goy owned it, tevilah is required. More directly, concerning the socher (merchant), the Taz appears to hold that if the Jew acquires full ownership, even for resale, tevilah might be necessary. Some interpret the Taz as requiring tevilah even for a merchant, as the keli has entered Jewish ownership, and the purification is for the keli itself.
• Chiddush: The Taz emphasizes the transfer of ownership from the gentile, suggesting that once a keli enters Jewish reshut, the gezeira might apply regardless of the owner's immediate intent for use. This stands in contrast to the Shach's position.

Shach: Kinyan for Use, Not Mere Ownership

The Shach (Rav Shabtai Kohen), in Siftei Kohen on Yoreh De'ah 120, directly addresses the merchant's tevilah.

• Shach, Yoreh De'ah 120:2 s.k. 3: "הקונה כלים מעכו"ם למוכרן מיד לאחרים, פטור מלטבול... דכיון שאין בדעתו להשתמש בהם לא חל עליו שם כלי, והחפץ הוא כמו דבר שאינו עומד אלא למכירה..."¹⁰.
• Chiddush: The Shach's chiddush is profound: tevilat keilim is contingent not merely on kinyan (acquisition) but on kinyan l'shimush (acquisition for personal use). If a Jew buys a vessel with the sole intent of reselling it, it has not yet achieved the status of a "vessel" (keli) for tevilah purposes with respect to that owner. The keli is viewed as "merchandise" rather than a household implement. The obligation thus transfers to the final Jewish owner who intends to use it. This is the position explicitly adopted by the Arukh HaShulchan in 269:5, providing the sevara "כיון שאין בדעתו להשתמש בהם לא חל עליו שם כלי".

---

Friction

One of the most significant points of contention within the sugya, directly addressed by the Arukh HaShulchan, revolves around the chiyuv tevilah (obligation of immersion) for a Jewish merchant who acquires vessels from a non-Jew solely for the purpose of resale.

The Strongest Kushya: Kinyan for Use vs. Kinyan for Ownership

The core kushya stems from the very definition of what triggers the mitzvah of tevilat keilim. Is it the transfer of ownership (kinyan) from a non-Jew to a Jew, or is it the intent for personal use by the Jewish owner?

• The Problem: If tevilah is triggered by any kinyan from a goy, then a merchant who acquires full legal ownership should be obligated, regardless of his intent to resell. The purification is for the keli itself, now transitioning into Jewish reshut. This aligns with the Taz's broader approach, where the keli itself needs purification once it has been in the goy's possession and then enters Jewish ownership. Furthermore, the bracha on tevilat keilim is recited upon tevilah, not upon use. If the merchant is truly the owner, why should he not immerse?
• Kushya on AHS's Position (Shach): The Arukh HaShulchan (269:5) unequivocally states: "הקונה כלים מעכו"ם למוכרן מיד לאחרים, פשוט הוא דאין צריך לטבול." This is a strong psak aligning with the Shach. The kushya then becomes: How can the Arukh HaShulchan claim this is "simple" when there is a clear machloket (at least implicitly) with the Taz, and more fundamentally, when the keli has been acquired by a Jew from a goy? Does the specific intent of the owner truly negate the designation of "keli" for tevilah purposes? The gemara in Avodah Zarah 75b-76a, which is the source for tevilat keilim, does not explicitly distinguish between kinyan l'shimush and kinyan l'sechora. The asmachta from Bamidbar 31:23 also simply refers to "כל דבר אשר יבא באש" – any item, without specifying the owner's intent.

The Best Terutz (Arukh HaShulchan's Approach)

The Arukh HaShulchan's reasoning, following the Shach, provides a compelling conceptual framework that resolves this kushya:

• "דכיון שאין בדעתו להשתמש בהם לא חל עליו שם כלי"¹¹.
• Terutz: The Arukh HaShulchan understands the gezeira of tevilat keilim not merely as a purification of a physical object upon transfer of ownership, but as a symbolic act of integrating the vessel into a Jewish household for actual Jewish use. The keli takes on its full "keli" status, for the purpose of tevilah, only when it is acquired with the intent of being used by a Jew in a manner consistent with its purpose. For a merchant, the vessels are not yet "keilim" in this sense; they are mere "merchandise" (sechora). They remain in a transitional state, awaiting their ultimate destination and purpose. Until they are acquired for shimush, the gezeira has not fully "landed." The bracha is recited al tevilat keli (upon the immersion of a vessel), not al kinyan keli (upon the acquisition of a vessel). This implies the focus is on the act of preparing the vessel for its intended function within a Jewish home, which for the merchant has not yet occurred. This sevara ensures that the burden of tevilah falls only upon the ultimate user, streamlining the process and aligning it with the spiritual intent of the mitzvah.

---

Intertext

The sugya of tevilat keilim is rich with intertextual connections, drawing from Biblical sources and resonating with broader themes of purity and transition in Jewish law.

Tanakh: Bamidbar 31:23 and the Midianite Spoils

The primary asmachta for tevilat keilim comes from the purification of spoils taken from Midian in Bamidbar 31:23: "כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש והטהר אך במי נדה יתחטא וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים" (Anything that can withstand fire, you shall pass through fire, and it shall be pure; but it must also be purified with the water of sprinkling. And anything that cannot withstand fire, you shall pass through water)¹².

• The Sifrei Bamidbar 12:3 explicitly connects this verse to vessels acquired from gentiles: "מכאן אמרו: כלי עובדי כוכבים שקנה ישראל, צריך טבילה" (From here they said: A vessel of idolaters that an Israelite acquires requires immersion)¹³.
• Connection: This verse establishes the fundamental principle of purifying items from gentile ownership. While the Biblical context focuses on ritual impurity from idolatry or battlefield defilement, the Sages extended the principle to a broader purification for use in a Jewish home. The distinction between fire and water purification in the verse also underpins the halacha of hagala (scalding) and libun (burning) for kashrut purposes, showing a parallel mechanism for cleansing vessels. The Arukh HaShulchan 268:17 directly references this verse and the Sages' derivation.

Responsa: Chatam Sofer and the Definition of a "New Vessel"

The question of whether a repaired or modified vessel requires a new tevilah is a complex one. The Arukh HaShulchan (270:1) addresses this, distinguishing between a "תיקון קל" (minor repair) and "נעשה כלי חדש" (became a new vessel). This distinction is a recurring theme in halachic literature.

• Teshuvot Chatam Sofer, Orach Chaim 117 (and Yoreh De'ah 99) extensively discusses the parameters for defining a "new vessel" in various contexts. For tevilat keilim, he generally leans towards requiring tevilah only if the keli has undergone such a fundamental change that it has lost its previous identity and acquired a new one, akin to a raw material being fashioned into a finished product. For example, if a broken glass vessel is melted down and reformed, it is certainly "new." If it's merely glued, it likely is not.
• Connection: The Chatam Sofer's rigorous analysis helps delineate the boundary between a simple repair that maintains the vessel's original status and a transformative act that creates a new entity. This directly informs the Arukh HaShulchan's psak in 270:1, which requires a new tevilah with a bracha only when the repair results in the creation of "כלי חדש" – a concept that the Chatam Sofer and other posekim meticulously define through various examples and sevarot. The underlying principle is whether the vessel has lost its previous kedushat Yisrael and thus needs to be re-sanctified.

---

Psak/Practice

The Arukh HaShulchan's presentation of tevilat keilim forms the bedrock of contemporary halachic practice. His synthesis of Rishonim and Acharonim provides a clear, actionable guide.

• Materials: The psak is definitive: metal and glass vessels require tevilah with a bracha (AHS 268:17). Earthenware, wood, stone, and bone do not (AHS 269:1). Modern materials are often analogized to these categories; e.g., hard plastics are generally not immersed, but Pyrex/Duralex (types of glass) are. Some poskim recommend tevilah without a bracha for materials like certain ceramics or plastics that resemble glass or metal, l'chumra (as a stringency), though this is not the explicit psak of AHS.
• Acquisition & Intent: The Arukh HaShulchan's strong adoption of the Shach's view (AHS 269:5) means that a merchant buying for resale does not need to immerse. The obligation falls on the final user. This is widely accepted halacha. However, if the merchant occasionally uses an item from his stock, he would need to immerse it first.
• Repairs: The distinction between minor repair and creating a "new vessel" (AHS 270:1) is crucial. A significant repair that fundamentally alters the vessel's structure or purpose (e.g., melting down and reforming) requires a new tevilah with a bracha. Minor repairs (e.g., fixing a handle, polishing) do not. This requires careful judgment, often relying on local rabbinic guidance.
• Meta-Psak Heuristics: The Arukh HaShulchan's emphasis on "intent for use" as a trigger for the mitzvah (AHS 269:5) is a significant meta-psak heuristic. It highlights that tevilat keilim is not a mere technicality of ownership transfer, but a spiritual act tied to the vessel's function within the Jewish home. This conceptual lens helps in resolving novel cases, such as vessels acquired for display or as raw materials.

---

Takeaway

Tevilat keilim transcends a simple ritual; it is a transformative act reflecting the vessel's induction into Jewish kedusha and its intended utility within a Jewish home. The nuances of kinyan and material transformation underscore that this gezeira is fundamentally about sanctifying the tools of daily life for their role in a life of Torah.

---

Footnotes: ¹ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 268:17. ² Sifrei Bamidbar 12:3. ³ Avodah Zarah 75b-76a. ⁴ Chullin 37b. ⁵ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 268:17. ⁶ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 269:1. ⁷ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 269:5. ⁸ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 270:1. ⁹ Rambam, Hilchot Ma'achalot Asurot 17:5-6. ¹⁰ Shach, Yoreh De'ah 120:2 s.k. 3. ¹¹ Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 269:5. ¹² Bamidbar 31:23. ¹³ Sifrei Bamidbar 12:3.