QUESTION

Chicago, Illinois

I received a question regarding a set of used china that has not been used for approximately two years. I am aware that this issue has been addressed previously in the context of a ba’al teshuva (one who has returned to religious observance) (Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah II:46). My question is whether there is room to be lenient here, particularly since this does not appear to be a classic ba’al teshuva scenario. The china does not seem to be inherited from family, but there may be an element of hefsed merubah (significant financial loss). The individual asking is a single parent, and this set may be the only china they can realistically afford, or something they received some time ago. Given these circumstances, I am wondering whether there is any basis for leniency.

ANSWER

There is, in my view, definite room to be lenient in this case, depending on the type of dish in question.

With respect to the plates, anything that was placed on them would already have arrived via iruy kli sheini (pouring from a second vessel). This assumes that serving vessels were used, which is a reasonable and appropriate assumption when dealing with china, as it is certainly not rov tashmisho (the primary manner of use) to transfer food directly from a pot or pan onto a plate. As such, there would be no concern of bishul (cooking) in this case (Magen Avraham 447:9).

Even with regard to soup bowls, one can adopt the lenient position that pouring soup with a ladle is considered iruy kli sheini (pouring from a second vessel), following the views of the Peri Chadash (451:5) and the Magen Avraham (452:9).

With respect to serving dishes, such as soup tureens and similar vessels, there is, in truth, room to be lenient as well. In most cases, food would be taken from the pot or pan using a fork, spoon, or ladle, and only then placed into the serving dish. This would constitute iruy kli rishon she-nifsak ha-kiluach (pouring from a first vessel after the direct flow has been interrupted), which is only assur (prohibited) up to a kedei kelipah (the thickness of a peel) (Rema, Yoreh De’ah 68:10; Shakh, Yoreh De’ah 91:7; Pitchei Teshuvah 91:5).

In addition, the fact that the dishes were washed with soap and hot water is significant, as this would likely render any absorbed taste pagum (impaired), providing an additional basis for leniency.

That said, lechatchila (as a preferred initial practice), I would recommend avoiding the use of these serving vessels if possible.

Practically speaking, the dishes may be used after performing iruy (pouring boiling water) on all of them. This is appropriate both from an experiential and psychological perspective, and also on halakhic grounds, as contemporary china with a porcelain glaze may be kasherable (She’elat Ya’avetz I:67; Meshiv Milhama II:150).