English translation — מטות ב

A.

In the parshah¹,

where Jews were commanded regarding the laws of kashering the vessels of Midian,

the Ramban asks²

: why were the laws of kashering gentile vessels stated only at the war of Midian and not earlier,

from whom the Jews also took spoils³

(in which there were certainly also vessels)?

And the Ramban answers,

that the land of Sihon and Og "is from the inheritance of Israel and all their spoils were permitted to them, even the prohibitions ..

And our Rabbis said⁴

the skins

of pigs were permitted to them, but Midian was not theirs and they did not take their land, only to take their vengeance ..

Therefore the prohibition was applied to their vessels."

Commentators ask*⁵

commentators⁶

on this: In the parshah, Jews were commanded not only regarding the laws of <b>kashering</b> gentile vessels,

but also regarding <b>immersion</b> of gentile vessels,

as Rashi brings it down here,

and as the Ramban himself elaborates on this — now why were they not commanded regarding immersion of vessels earlier,

at the war of Sihon and Og,

at the war of Sihon and Og?

And here one cannot answer,

as regarding the law of kashering,

that at the war of Sihon and Og even "the skins of pigs were permitted to them",

because the reason for immersion of vessels is not due to the <b>prohibition</b> that is absorbed in the vessel — for even new gentile vessels require immersion⁷

(rather

(as it states in the Yerushalmi⁸)

"because they went out from the impurity of the gentile and entered into the holiness of Israel")?

And although the Ramban writes right before this: "And my heart ponders further to say that this immersion is &lt;b&gt;from their words&lt;/b&gt;,

and the verse they made a &lt;b&gt;support&lt;/b&gt;" - but it is not understood: a)

The Ramban indeed explains "and this requires study" - d.

h.

He is in doubt and it is possible that this is from the Torah&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

Even if the "verse" is only a &lt;b&gt;support,&lt;/b&gt;

one can still ask: why does the Torah place the

(words of the)

support at the war of Midian and not at the war of Sihon and Og?

c)

And in any case: why does the Ramban not comment at all about this?

; b)

b.

At first glance one could answer&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

: It is known,

that not all commandments were given immediately at the giving of the Torah; there are several commandments that were said at a later time,

until even in the fortieth year,

like&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

the portion of inheritances&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

which was innovated later through the daughters of Tzelafchad

(and others)

And accordingly there is no place to ask,

why they did not announce about immersion of vessels earlier

(at the war of Sihon and Og)

- because only at the war of Midian did the time come when the matter was renewed,

and as per "the Torah was given and the halachah was renewed"¹³.

And that which the Ramban asks regarding <b>the purging of</b> gentiles,

it is because it is necessary to say,

that the law of prohibition of absorbed taste - that what was absorbed

(from a forbidden thing)

in the vessel is forbidden and prohibits the vessel - was already from earlier¹⁴,

before the war of Midian:

It stands in an earlier parshah

(to¹⁵)

"And any earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken, and if it is cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water,"

Rashi explains there: "shall be broken,

because the absorbed matter that was absorbed in it becomes leftover etc."; "and scoured and rinsed,

to expel its absorbed matter etc." - it thus emerges,

that the matter of the prohibition of absorbed matter was already from earlier¹⁶

; and since this is so,

the Ramban asks,

why did they only at the war of Midian command the laws of kashering gentile vessels,

and not at the earlier time when Jews acquired vessels that require kashering - at the war of Sihon and Og.

It is, however, still not smooth: since the Ramban speaks about <b>both </b>matters,

both kashering gentile vessels and immersion,

he should have at least mentioned briefly the aforementioned difference that exists between them

(which is why he asks <b>only </b>about kashering gentile vessels and not about immersion).

And etc. - and moreover - is not understood in that which other commentators explain,

why they did not command regarding immersion of vessels in the war of Sihon and Og - which in addition to the forced explanations that exist in each of the answers

(and see elsewhere),

there is the general question: why does the &lt;b&gt;Ramban&lt;/b&gt; not address the question?

3.

One will understand this by prefacing two more difficulties in the matter of immersion of vessels:

a)

It is known what the Noda BiYehuda¹⁷

and the Chasam Sofer¹⁸

write,

that when one sells the chametz to the gentile before Pesach,

one should not sell the chametz vessels,

because then one will need to immerse them when buying them back from the gentile after Pesach¹⁹

But in the text of the bill of sale of the Alter Rebbe²⁰

it is written: “And also vessels with chametz that have actual chametz on them” - i.e.

that

that also the vessels are sold to the gentile,

and nevertheless one does not find that the Alter Rebbe said,

that after Pesach one must immerse the vessels²¹.

And maaseh rav - that one does not immerse them.

In Shaar HaKlali²²

he answers,

that since the Alter Rebbe says “

(vessels that are leavened)

<b>that have chametz on them visibly</b>”,

and the law²³

is that “all vessels that one does not want to kasher etc. must be scrubbed etc. and rinsed etc. so that no chametz is visible on them”; and consequently it turns out,

that the “vessels of the meal were not sold at all”

(since they are clean of visible chametz)

- and only “vessels of the meal” are obligated in immersion²⁴.

But the answer is not understood: the law of “must be scrubbed” applies indeed to <b>all</b> vessels,

and since the vessels that “must be scrubbed” are not included

(according to his method in Shaar HaKlali)

in the sale - then which are the vessels

(mentioned in the bill of sale)

that are sold with the chametz?

And it must be said,

that in a bill of sale one stipulates - if for some reason one did not rub,

If so, then the question returns to its place.

One must say,

that although vessels of a meal

(upon which there is leaven in its substance)

are included in the sale to the non-Jew,

nevertheless,

they need,

according to the view of the Alter Rebbe,

no immersion <b>not </b>have.

b)

One of the reasons²⁵

for the custom to eat dairy foods on

(the first day of)

the Festival of Shavuot is,

that this is in memory of the dairy foods that Jews ate on the day of the Giving of the Torah: since regarding the laws of slaughter Jews were commanded,

like most of the commandments,

at the Giving of the Torah,

immediately all their meat foods and vessels which they had became forbidden,

because before the Giving of the Torah they were not subject to the law of slaughter — therefore they were not permitted to eat any food or cooked dish of meat,

because „all agree <b>on Shabbat </b>the Torah was given”²⁶]

they had to eat only dairy foods.

Seemingly one can ask on this: How did they eat foods and cooked dishes of milk?

And it is very forced to say that they ate only "butter and milk",

but not any cooked dishes.

And further - if so, it would also have needed to be hinted in the custom now.

And in any case - they had to beforehand also immerse their milk vessels,

which became prohibited because of the fact that one was not previously careful from cooking in them meat

(or mixtures of meat and milk)?

It is not a question,

because it lends itself to say,

that going out from Egypt,

and knowing that "when you bring out the people from Egypt you will serve God on this mountain"²⁷,

Jews were careful in

(the commandment - also in)

meat and milk²⁸,

and consequently they had separate vessels for milk foods,

and they did not become prohibited from meat foods

(or from meat and milk).

(because of their form)

only for dairy foods].

It is however not understood: true indeed that they did not need to &lt;b&gt;kasher &lt;/b&gt;the vessels because there was no absorption of prohibition in them,

but at the giving of the Torah Jews indeed entered into

(in the aforementioned Jerusalem Talmud)

the sanctity of Israel&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

they should indeed for that reason have needed to immerse their vessels&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

from before when they were still not in the sanctity of Israel&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

- thus our question returns to its place: how could Jews have used their dairy vessels without immersion&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;?

4.

As said many times,

one can learn from Rashi on the Torah "wondrous topics"³³

also in the manner of halachah; and although Rashi explains "the <b>plain meaning </b>of Scripture",

from which it is understood,

that one cannot rule a halachah from the halachic matters that one extracts from Rashi in the manner of <b>the plain meaning</b>³⁴

- nevertheless,

there are places where Rashi brings down matters

(not from his own opinion,

but)

in the name of "<b>our Rabbis </b>expounded"

(and the like)

; from which it is understood,

that although this is a derash that pertains to "the <b>plain meaning </b>of Scripture"

(and therefore Rashi brings it down in his commentary),

it is, however, also upheld in the manner of study of "<b>and our Rabbis expounded</b>" - in the study in the manner of <b>the halachah</b>³⁵.

And so too in our case,

the explanation as above is understood from Rashi here in our parshah:

When Rashi brings down the matter of immersion of vessels

(on the words "but with water of sprinkling shall he be cleansed")

he says: "According to its plain meaning, this cleansing is to purify it from impurity of a corpse,

but the vessels need scouring &lt;b&gt;to purify them&lt;/b&gt;*&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

from the prohibition and cleansing to purify them from the impurity.

And our Sages expounded&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

from here that even &lt;b&gt;to make them fit from the prohibition &lt;/b&gt;immersion is required etc."

It is understood from Rashi's commentary,

that

(according to his method)

the matter of immersion of vessels is connected with the &lt;b&gt;prohibition &lt;/b&gt;

("to make them fit from the &lt;b&gt;prohibition&lt;/b&gt;")&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;.

But it is difficult: the law⁷

is indeed,

that also vessels <b>new</b> are obligated in immersion,

although they do not have in them any absorption of prohibition,

and as the Gemara³⁶

explains: "For old ones that were fired are like new ones and even so they require immersion"; moreover: <b>Rashi</b> himself interprets the words of the end of the verse "and everything that does not come into fire you shall pass through water": "And everything that does not come into fire - any thing whose use is not by fire ..

<b>and did not absorb prohibition</b>"; "you shall pass through water - immerse it and it is sufficient etc." - now since the vessels "<b>did not</b> absorb prohibition",

how does it fit to say that one must immerse them "to make them fit <b>from the prohibition</b>"?

5.

This will become understood by prefacing the precision in the language of Rashi: by purging Rashi says that this does "<b>to purify them</b> from the prohibition"

(and so also "scouring" - "according to its <b>simple meaning</b>" - is "<b>to purify them</b> from the impurity"),

but by immersion he says the language "<b>to make them fit</b> from the prohibition"; and it can be said,

that with this <b>change</b> of language³⁸

(continuation one)

between purging

("to purify them")

and immersion

("to make them fit")

Rashi explains the difference between purging and immersion:

The definition of "purity" applies only to an item that has in itself impurity*&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

or prohibition,

and therefore hagalah - which removes the reality of the prohibition that is absorbed in the vessel - is called "&lt;b&gt;to purify them &lt;/b&gt;from the prohibition";

"To kasher them" is like the language of preparation

(in the manner of "preparation for a commandment")

: the vessel becomes ready and prepared to be able to use it; i.e.

that is,

the function of immersion is not to remove the &lt;b&gt;reality &lt;/b&gt;of the prohibition from the vessel - that has already been accomplished through hagalah,

or initially there was no prohibition - rather to make the vessel fit for a use

(of a Jew)

which is &lt;b&gt;excluded &lt;/b&gt;from prohibition,

from the &lt;b&gt;possibility &lt;/b&gt;and likelihood of prohibition: when the vessel is in the domain of a non-Jew,

even when he actually &lt;b&gt;did not &lt;/b&gt;use it with a forbidden thing,

there is nevertheless the &lt;b&gt;possibility &lt;/b&gt;that he might do so&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

; and therefore,

when the vessel passes into the domain of a Jew,

for a use in which there is not even the "possibility" of using it with a forbidden thing*&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

the vessel must have immersion "&lt;b&gt;to kasher them &lt;/b&gt;from the prohibition"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

that "any woman who has known a man by lying with him, kill"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

which means

(not only those for whom this was actual,

but as Rashi explains)

also those who are "&lt;b&gt;fit&lt;/b&gt; for intercourse even though &lt;b&gt;they have not&lt;/b&gt; been lain with"].

And therefore also new vessels

(or those that "are used with cold [water]")

require immersion - although "they have not absorbed prohibition" - because by the very fact that they were in the domain of a non-Jew,

they have become "fit" for the matter of prohibition&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;.

6.

According to the above, the three aforementioned difficulties are resolved -

Why does the Ramban ask only about the heathen's used vessels and not about <b>immersion of </b>vessels?

(b)

Why does one not need to immerse the vessels that one sells to the gentile in the chametz?

(c)

How did Jews,

right after the giving of the Torah,

manage to use their vessels

(of milk)

without immersion?

(a)

a)

The Ramban indeed relies on Rashi,

he quotes "the language of Rashi"

(on the words "and everything that does not come into fire")

and he discusses them,

and <b>Rashi </b>says that immersion is in order "to make them fit <b>from the prohibition</b>" -

the Ramban already does not need to ask separately about immersion,

because the same answer that exists regarding sprinkling — that by the war of Sichon and Og even “the bristles of pigs were permitted to them”⁴³

— is also valid regarding immersion: since by the war of Sichon and Og there was entirely not the category of “prohibition”

(because even “the bristles of pigs were permitted to them”),

consequently there was also no place for possibilities of prohibition

(upon which comes the matter of immersion — “to make them fit <b>from the prohibition</b>”)⁴⁴.

b)

Sale of chametz: although one indeed sells the chametz and vessels with chametz to the non-Jew,

and one even gives him the keys of the rooms where they are located⁴⁵,

one sells, however, in a manner that one knows from the outset that immediately after Passover it will again belong to the Jew; and it is not at all common⁴⁶

that the non-Jew should actually use the sold chametz and the vessels

who say,

that the entire matter of sale of chametz is like a legal fiction,

but regarding chametz this is also sufficient]

And since the sale is in a manner that the non-Jew does not have the possibility to use the vessels,

therefore they do not require immersion “to make them permissible from the prohibition”⁴⁸.

but also the obligation of <b>scalding</b>].

c)

Dairy foods on Shavuot: as discussed,

Jews were before the Giving of the Torah careful about meat and milk,

and consequently it is not only that their dairy vessels actually did not have any absorption of prohibition,

but moreover: there was no possibility of this; and therefore they did not need to immerse their vessels

(of milk)

- regarding the vessels the matter of “to make them permissible from the prohibition” does not apply.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Nasso 5736)