QUESTION

Boston, Massachusetts

Could you please share your approach to kashering a new stovetop griddle? There appear to be three defensible positions about cast iron cookware:

(a) Treating the factory seasoning as b’eyn, requiring libun gamur. This is the position of Rabbi Belsky z”l at the OU. It seems that this is based on the Shakh (YD 121:8) and Pri Megadim about solids absorbed directly (though this does seem to be a minority, machmir view in the books).

(b) Treating it as baluah, so either hagalah or libbun kal suffices. This is the position of Rav Gedaliah Dov Schwartz z”l, seemingly following the Chazon Ish Y.D. 44:4 and the Rema (OH 451:4).

(c) Assuming the factory seasoning is nifsal me’achilah, and that factory heating already exceeded yad soledet bo (and perhaps was hot enough for libun gamur), requiring nothing further. This is the COR’s approach.

Which do you follow and recommend?
And if you have second-order thoughts on navigating between three legitimate approaches, each with mekorot and contemporary endorsements, I’d be interested to hear.

ANSWER

The sources regarding kashering, whether in Yoreh De’ah 121 or Orach Chaim 451, are clear:

• Heteira bala (permitted substance absorbed into a utensil) may be addressed with libun kal

• Issura bala (forbidden substance absorbed into a utensil) requires libun chamur

In this case, the apparent concern would be issura, which would seemingly require libun chamur. The Shakh cited by the OU (YD 121:8) does not suggest otherwise. Rather, the Shakh merely quotes a stringent opinion that even in a case of heteira bala, if the absorption occurred directly from a solid without any liquid present, libun chamur might still be required. This view is presented as a chumra (stringency) and is not accepted as normative halakha. Most importantly, even according to that stringent opinion, issura bala always requires libun chamur. Therefore, if this were truly a case of a forbidden substance absorbed into the pan, libun chamur would indeed be required.

However, it is possible that the real issue here is not whether the absorption is classified as balua (absorbed) or be’eyn (present as a substance), but rather how the absorption took place. Namely: is absorption of oil into the pan considered bishul (cooking through a liquid medium), which would allow kashering via hagalah or libun kal, or is it considered tzli/eish (roasting or direct fire), which would require libun chamur?

Assuming the issue at hand is how the absorption took place, then the sources mentioned are not relevant. This is not what the Shakh or Hazon Ish are talking about. They are dealing with a different case altogether: meat frying in a pan with a thin layer of oil, where the oil is partially absorbed or evaporates, allowing the meat itself (the issur) to come into direct contact with the metal. The debate there is whether that situation is halakhically closer to bishul or tzli. Here, by contrast, the question would be about the oil itself being forbidden, not food cooked in it.

Regarding assur oil, I see no one saying that if the oil were issur, it would be considered bishul. There is the Pri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav 451:16), who appears to assume that absorption of issur oil is treated as bishul, although it requires some rereading of certain lines in the Shulchan Aruch. It’s wonderful that these Kashrut organizations are following this more lenient ruling, but it has nothing to do with the Shakh or the Hazon Ish.

Given all that, let’s address this case.

When I purchased a cast-iron pot, I contacted the manufacturer and explained that I absolutely could not have any animal by-products used in the seasoning process. I was told unequivocally that only plant-based oil was used. Given that:

1. Animal-based oils are significantly more expensive;

2. There are serious liability concerns involving vegans, allergies, and consumer protection

3. The pan is eino ben yomo

4. A form of libun may already have occurred during manufacturing,

My position is that the pan may be used without any hechsher, provided that one verifies directly with the manufacturer that no animal by-products were used.

There is an additional possibility worth noting. If, as manufacturer descriptions suggest, the oil is superheated to bond with the metal and, in that process, becomes nifsal me’achilah (no longer fit for consumption), then the entire discussion changes. In that case:

1. The oil is be’eyn (present as a substance), so neither libun nor hagalah would remove it

2. Eino ben yomo would be irrelevant

3. Since the oil is no longer edible, there is no halakhic issue to begin with.

Regardless – bottom line, I would clarify with the company, and if you receive assurances that it is absolutely only plant-based, you are fine.

As to how to navigate between 3 different kashrus agencies, this is no different than when poskim argue. One should start by looking into both the metzius and the halakha, and let that be your primary guide. Finally, as you can see that I did above, check their sources and the cogency of their arguments.