Question (Rashbam): Granted, Iruy of boiling water from a Kli Rishon helps for bowls and other Kelim that it is normal to pour into them;

How does it help for those bowls and Kelim that were totally entered into a Kli Rishon, and they are full of Isurim on every side, in the entire thickness of the Kli...

[How will this help] so that it will be permitted to return and enter them in a boiling pan or pot of Heter, since we hold like Shmuel, who says that Tatah Gavar, and [Iruy] cooks only Kedei Klipah?! (Likewise, it cannot Kasher more than Kedei Klipah!)

Answer: If we would explain that Iruy is totally like a Kli Rishon, and it cooks more than Kedei Klipah, and Shmuel's teaching that it cooks only Kedei Klipah is only regarding two dry matters that touch each other...

... And even a moist matter, e.g. the soup dripped on flour, that soup is not like Iruy, for it was interrupted [from the Kli Rishon]...

... However, Iruy in which the power of the Kli Rishon is not interrupted totally cooks - according to this, we resolve R. Tam's words that pouring boiling water on them is total Hechsher, even for bowls that one puts them in a pot or pan.

Support - Question: Also, [if so] you cannot ask what I asked above that boiling water on flour, how is it exempt from Chalah? It cooks only Kedei Klipah!

We can say that it cooks totally, like I explained!

Disclaimer: However, R. Tam did not hold like this, since he needed to say that Iruy cooks only Kedei Klipah, due to the question from Tatah Gavar!

Question: A Mishnah in Shabbos (145b) teaches that anything that came in boiling water before Shabbos, one may soak it in hot water on Shabbos. Anything that did not come in boiling water before Shabbos, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbos, except for old salted fish and Spanish tuna fish;

If Iruy is like a Kli Rishon, why may one rinse?!

Answer #1: There it discusses a Kli Sheni, and even so one may rinse [other foods from the Kli Sheni], but one may not soak [them in the Kli Sheni], for it looks like cooking;

This is unlike spices, which we permit in Shabbos (42b) to put them in a bowl or plate, for they are made to sweeten the [food in] the pot (one is not interested in cooking the spices themselves), and it does not look like cooking.

Answer #2: [It discusses a Kli Sheni. Really, one may rinse and even soak other foods in the Kli Sheni. The Mishnah] taught rinsing for a bigger Chidush. Even rinsing is forbidden for salted fish and Spanish tuna fish.

Question: Why is this different than what we say in Chulin (111b), that fish that came in a [meaty] bowl (i.e. it was previously used for meat), one may eat them with Kutach (a dairy dip), for Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am is permitted? (The bowl merely received taste from the meat, and the fish merely received taste from the bowl.)

Answer #1 (Rashi citing his father-in-law Rabbeinu Yehudah): We permit only if they came in [the bowl], but if they were cooked in it, it is forbidden;

An episode came in front of him in which eggs were cooked in a pot in which milk was cooked, and he forbade making from them stuffing for meat.

Implied suggestion: A proof for him is from a pot in which meat was cooked. One may not cook milk in it. If he did, it is forbidden if there is taste [of meat in the milk - 96b]!

Rejection: That is not Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am, for the secondary taste (meat in the milk) is forbidden;

However, here the secondary taste (meat in the fish) is Heter. Before it comes to Isur, the taste is Batel in the fish, since it is a secondary [taste].

Support: We can learn from a radish cut with a meaty knife. One may not eat it with Kutach (Chulin 111b), for due to [the radish's] sharpness, it absorbs more, and it is considered like one (primary) taste;

What was cooked (in a meaty Kli) is no less [forbidden with milk] than a radish cut with a meaty knife.

Retraction: However, according to the other version that Rashi explained there, the reason [to forbid the radish with Kutach] is because a bowl is unlike a knife;

A Stam bowl, people clean off the congealed lard on it, for it is repulsive, but a knife, sometimes lard is congealed on it and it is not noticed. When he cuts, there is in the radish taste that comes from real [lard, and not a mere absorbed taste]. According to this, there is no proof [to fish cooked in a meaty bowl] from a radish cut with a knife.

Explanation (R. Tam): Also an oven smeared with lard of the tail, it is impossible to clean it well, and some grease sticks to it, and it is intact, until the oven is ignited.

Rejection (of Answer #1): We can derive that even [fish] cooked [in a meaty bowl] is permitted [with Kutach] from what it says below (97a) that [Kodshim cooked in a pot] every day Kashers what was absorbed the previous day, and one may cook now [today's] Shelamim in a pot in which Shelamim was cooked yesterday;

We do not say that he diminishes the [time to] eat today's Shelamim (for it absorbs taste from yesterday's), for it is a secondary taste, and it is Batel before it becomes Asur.

Implied suggestion: There is different, for [the taste of yesterday's Shelamim] is a third level taste, for there is water in the pot in which Shelamim is cooked! (The water received primary taste, and the pot received only secondary taste from yesterday's Shelamim, so today's Shelamim receives a third level taste.)

Rejection #1: For this reason also we should permit eggs cooked in a dairy pot, to make stuffing for meat from them, for [the eggs] were cooked in water! (Even if the pot received primary taste, eggs cooked in it get only a third level taste, i.e. from the water, which gets a secondary taste.)

Rejection #2: Regarding a spit and grate, they bring the teaching that every day Kashers [absorptions of] the previous day. (There is no water in the middle. The spit or grate received primary taste from yesterday's Shelamim, and today's Shelamim receives secondary taste!)

Rejection #3: You are forced to say that this is not a proof, for regarding Chatas we cannot say so, for in Avodah Zarah (76a) we permit to cook Chatas and then Shelamim;

He diminishes the [Shelamim's] edibility, for [due to the taste of Chatas] it becomes forbidden to Zarim, women (even Kohanos) and slaves (even of Kohanim), and it is eaten only one day and a night, and it is disqualified through leaving [the Azarah] like Chatas!

We cannot permit here due to Nosen Ta'am Bar Nosen Ta'am, only when there are two Nosen Ta'am's of Heter, but when one is forbidden, no. (Perhaps 'two Nosen Ta'am's of Heter" means that even after the secondary taste is absorbed, it is permitted.)

This is like any pot in which meat was cooked. One may not cook milk in it. If Terumah was cooked in it, one may not cook Chulin in it.

You are forced to say that there it is because Min b'Mino is Batel mid'Oraisa in a majority. Regarding Kelim of the Mikdash during the festival, [Chachamim] left Torah law in place.

Implied question: Below (97a), they forbid a wafer that touched a wafer, and a piece that touched a piece!

Answer: Regarding Kelim they were more lenient.

Question: If even when they were cooked it is permitted, why did Rabanan say that it requires Merikah u'Shtifah from the time that the first may be eaten, regarding yesterday's Shelamim and today's Shelamim? Both of them are Heter! (Merikah u'Shtifah is needed after it becomes Nosar. Tosfos asks, since yesterday's taste is Batel, why must we do Merikah u'Shtifah based on yesterday's Korban? Chak Nasan question's Tosfos' question. Chachamim do not say that each day Kashers yesterday's absorptions!)

It is unreasonable to say that it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv regarding something that is totally permitted in Chulin, even mid'Rabanan. This is from R. Baruch.

Question: Why is it difficult why they must be broken? It is not due to absorptions, rather, it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, if he holds that something suspended in the airspace of an oven must be broken, even though there is only cooking without absorption!

Answer: R. Tam used to say that when they are Husak (heated, in order to bake in them), they become like new Kelim. (Therefore, they should be permitted through Hasakah.)

Proof - Question: We say in the entire Gemara that the Torah testified about a Kli Cheres, that the taste never leaves its walls. It leaves its walls through returning it to the kiln!

Rather, surely when they are Husak, they become like new Kelim, and they are considered new Kelim, for Panim Chadashos came. (As long as it is the initial Kli, the taste never leaves.)

Implied question #1: Regarding Tum'ah, a Kli Cheres must be broken, and we say (Kelim 5:7) that one divides an oven into three, like it says "Tanur v'Kirayim Yutatz";

We do not say "why must it be broken? When it is ignited to bake in it, this is its Taharah, for it is considered a different Kli!"

Implied question #2: If an oven was Husak with peels of Orlah (which are Asur b'Hana'ah), if it is new, it must be broken (for the first Hasakah solidified it. We should suffice to heat it again, and it will be like a new Kli!) Why is a Kli Cheres unlike an oven?

Answer #1: Since an oven is used through Hesek, it is not considered Panim Chadashos.

Answer #2: Perhaps even in an oven, if he would heat it inside and out, like its initial construction when the potter makes it, and puts it in the oven, perhaps this would help.

Question #1: In Sotah (15b) regarding a new Cheres flask, Rava said "[Chachamim permit a used Kli] only if it has not blackened. If it blackened, it is Pasul';

Citation (15b): What is the reason? Just like water is unchanged, the Kli must be unchanged.

Rava asked "if it had blackened, and it was returned to a furnace and whitened, what is the law? Do we say, once it became invalid, it remains invalid? Or, do we say, since it is new again, it is valid?" He did not resolve this at all.

What was his question? We say that Panim Chadashos came here, and it is like a new Kli Cheres. This Kli is properly like the water, which did not change!

Question #2: Even regarding Chulin, we say (Pesachim 30b) that the Torah testified about a Kli Cheres, that the taste never leaves its walls. What is the source of this?

We cannot learn from Chatas, for it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, like I explained, if you will say that cooking without absorption obligates breaking!

Answer: Since the Torah permitted copper Kelim through Merikah u'Shtifah, and it did not permit Klei Cheres, this teaches that the reason is due to absorption. The taste leaves the walls of [copper Kelim], but it does not leave the walls of [Klei Cheres];

Implied question: Why does cooking without absorption obligate breaking?

Answer: For this, it is reasonable to say that it is because the Torah was stringent to consider it absorbed.

Limitation: Only through Hag'alah the taste never leaves it walls, but through returning it to the kiln it leaves.

Question: Why did the Torah obligate breaking? You cannot say about the verse that it is lest one be concerned [for his Kli, and not heat it enough lest it break], nor because we do not make furnaces in Yerushalayim!

Answer: This is a Chidush, that the Torah permitted through breaking it. One might have thought that breaking does not help, since the taste of Chatas is still absorbed in the Cheres;

[One might have thought that] the taste must be Batel from the world [in order to permit], similar to copper Kelim for which Merikah u'Shtifah were done. However, obviously returning to the kiln permits more.

Remark: This is unlike Seforim in which the text says here "pots of the Mikdash, why did the Torah say to break them? They should return them to the kilns!" [This text] connotes that we question the verse, since it says "why did the Torah say...?"

Question: Why did [the Tartzan] abandon Minchas Ma'afeh, about which it explicitly says "Tanur" (and mention Menachos about which the Torah did not write Tanur)?

Suggestion: It is because R. Shimon does not require Hekdesh in the oven [for Ma'afeh Tanur], like he expounds in Menachos (63a), since "Tanur" is written twice. Rather, he requires only that they were Hukdash for the sake of baking in an oven.

Rejection: If so, also Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, [for] R. Shimon does not distinguish (also for those he does not require Hekdesh in the oven), like is proven there;

The Gemara infers this from what the Mishnah teaches (Menachos 95b) that R. Shimon says "you should be used to saying that Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim are Kosher [if they were] baked in the Azarah, or in Beis Pagi (outside the Azarah).

Answer: He did not mention Minchas Ma'afeh, because that itself Rabanan of R. Shimon know only from Shtei ha'Lechem and Lechem ha'Panim, which are a tradition, like it says in Menachos (96a) that R. Yehudah and R. Shimon argue about a tradition.

Question: What was the question, and what was Rav Yitzchak's Havah Amina?

Suggestion: He asks when part of the Kli is on the fire with which he cooks is hot, and the rest of the Kli is cold.

Rejection: If so, why did he say "cooking [makes the absorptions] diffuse"? It does not diffuse in the entire Kli!

If the entire Kli is hot, obviously [the absorptions] diffuse in all of it, and [all] needs Merikah u'Shtifah!

If he asks whether or not [the absorptions] diffuse in the entire Kli, if so he should ask also about other Isurim!

Question: Why doesn't it say that Merikah u'Shtifah are after Zerikah, unlike Haza'ah?

Answer: We consider a stringency only what is before Zerikah, i.e. before Kaparah, which depends on Avodas ha'Dam.

Explanation: From "Kodesh Kodoshim" we would exclude Kodshim Kalim, and all the more so Terumah;

Therefore, when we expound Osah to exclude Terumah, you are forced to say [that it excludes] only Terumah, and not Kodshim Kalim, for an exclusion after an exclusion is only to include (Yoma 43a).

Explanation: [It was taught that Kodshim require Merikah u'Shtifah in cold water] after Hag'alah. This, even in hot water [alone suffices]. I.e. for Terumah, Hag'alah suffices, and Merikah u'Shtifah in cold water are not needed;

[The Gemara] asks this is fine for the opinion that Merikah u'Shtifah is in cold water, i.e. after Hag'alah;

However, according to the opinion that Merikah is in hot water and Shtifah is in cold water, for Merikah is Hag'alah, how can we answer?

It answers that this is an extra Shtifah. For Kodshim, one must do an extra rinsing after Hag'alah, unlike Terumah.

Inference: We can learn from here that forbidden Kelim, when one Kashers them through Hag'alah, he need not rinse them in cold water afterwards, even though the custom is to do so.