English translation — צו א

Among the laws of the sin-offering in our parshah¹

the Torah says²

: "And an earthenware vessel in which it was cooked shall be broken, and if it was cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed with water."

Rashi stands on the word "shall be broken" and explains: "Because the absorbed matter that was absorbed in it becomes leftover, and the same applies to all sacred offerings."

That which Rashi needs

1.

(a)

to explain the <b>reason</b> of the law of "it shall be broken"³,

and

(b)

to add "and the same applies to all sacred offerings" — one must say simply:

The verse "And any earthenware vessel etc." comes as a continuation to the previous verse where the law of "blood of the sin-offering" is stated — "And if any of its blood is sprinkled on a garment etc. you shall wash it in a holy place",

which <b>the</b> obligation is here only by a sin-offering and not by any other offering.

And based on this one would have needed to learn⁴,

that the verse "And any earthenware vessel etc.",

which comes immediately as a continuation to this,

is also a unique law by a sin-offering⁵

— that due to the stringency of the sin-offering,

there becomes

(immediately)

an obligation to remove the absorbed sin-offering from the vessel

(like the blood of the sin-offering from the garment)

: and therefore the Torah says,

that an earthenware vessel,

from which one cannot remove the absorption

(as Rashi says afterwards⁶

"An earthenware vessel...

does not come out of its mouth's state forever")

the law is that — "it shall be broken" —

Rashi <b>rejects</b> the explanation and says that the law of "yishaver" is not connected with the substance of the chatas,

rather "because the absorption that was absorbed in it becomes <b>nosar</b>

(and consequently)

and the same applies <b>to all</b> sacred offerings"

(because with all sacred offerings the law of nosar exists)⁷

— not like the law of the blood of the chatas from the previous verse.

But this very thing needs to be understood: what is the necessity in the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse to learn,

that the reason is because of the prohibition of nosar

(and consequently "the same applies <b>to all</b> sacred offerings")⁸

— and not

(as it is seemingly implied from the plain flow of the verses)

that this is a unique law regarding the chatas

(in the manner of the law preceding this of the blood of the chatas)?

And on the contrary — superficially it is difficult to accept

(in the manner of &lt;b&gt;the plain meaning&lt;/b&gt;)

that the law of "yishaver" is from the aspect of the prohibition of notar,

because:

a)

Simply, it does not lend itself to say that regarding the &lt;b&gt;absorption&lt;/b&gt; the category of "notar"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt; should apply,

for the meaning of "notar" is — a leftover from that which was eaten earlier,

namely a &lt;b&gt;tangible&lt;/b&gt; entity that is fit for eating — unlike the absorption in a vessel,

which is not in the category of eating and consequently also not "notar" from a thing &lt;b&gt;that was eaten&lt;/b&gt;.

If the "yishaver" is from the side of the prohibition of nosar,

it means,

that the obligation of "yishaver" takes effect

(not immediately after the cooking,

but)

only after the time of eating the korban ends

(when it becomes nosar)¹⁰

— the Torah should have specified the <b>time</b> of the obligation of breaking

(just as the Torah gives the time when the prohibition of nosar takes effect on the <b>meat</b> of the korban)¹¹?

2.

b)

Further, Rashi cites the word "umork" and explains: l’tamrukei hanashim¹²

escuriʀ¹³

in laaz

e.

a thing <b>that polishes¹⁴</b>

And afterwards he cites "umork v’shotef" and explains: to expel its absorbed taste,

but earthenware vessels the verse taught you here that it does not come out of its mouth¹⁵

ever.

It is not smooth: Rashi's commentary on "and he shall empty and rinse"

(to expel its swallowed [contents] but an earthenware vessel etc.)

is indeed a direct continuation to the previous commentary on "shall be broken"

(because the swallowed [contents] etc. becomes leftover)

— Rashi should have juxtaposed the two commentaries and not interrupted between them with the explanation of the word "and he shall empty"

and as one finds elsewhere in Rashi¹⁶

that first he explains the content of the matter and afterwards the explanation of the word].

In this commentary on "and he shall empty and rinse" it is not understood:

From that which Rashi concludes "But the vessel of ḥerem the verse taught you &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; that it does not leave its mouth forever" it implies,

that from this law "it shall be broken" which is stated regarding an earthenware vessel itself one would &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; have known that "it does not leave its mouth forever",

rather one learns it only from this law "and it shall be emptied and rinsed,

to expel its absorption" regarding a copper vessel —

It is perplexing: why should one not be able to learn this from "it shall be broken" itself?

Since Rashi himself says that the reason for "it shall be broken" is because of the "absorption that is absorbed in it"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

this is a proof,

that there is no possibility that the absorption should be expelled

(completely?)

from an earthenware vessel!

its existence remains in the shards of the earthenware vessel¹⁸

; but not so through the expulsion of the absorption it becomes nullified].

3.

And one must say the explanation in this:

In this preceding verse the Torah states two distinct laws regarding their matters:

a)

A law in connection with <b>the flesh</b> of the sin-offering — "Everything that <b>touches</b> <b>its flesh</b> shall become holy",

and this means

(as Rashi explains)

"Any <b>food</b> item that touches <b>and absorbs¹⁹</b>

from it",

and since the

(reason)

flesh of the sin-offering becomes <b>absorbed</b> into the food,

therefore the law is

(as Rashi explains)

: "shall become holy,

to be like it: if it is invalid etc., if it is valid it shall be eaten according to its stringent rule".

b)

A law in connection with <b>blood</b> of a sin-offering — "And if it is sprinkled from its blood upon the garment etc., you shall wash it in a holy place"; and in this is the emphasis "he shall sprinkle" — it is not a case of absorption in a manner that the blood becomes mixed into

the general existence of the garment*¹⁹,

but the Torah says that since in the garment there is found blood of a sin-offering,

the blood must be removed from the garment — "you shall wash it"

but

(<b>as Rashi explains</b>)

only "the place of the blood"].

And therefore,

when it comes to the verse "and any earthenware vessel in which &lt;b&gt;it is boiled&lt;/b&gt;" — a deficiency from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;absorption&lt;/b&gt; of &lt;b&gt;the meat&lt;/b&gt; in the vessel

(which becomes absorbed through &lt;b&gt;boiling&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

— it is plausible to say,

that this case is not in the category of "which its blood is sprinkled",

but in the same type as the law of "anything that touches

(&lt;b&gt;and absorbs&lt;/b&gt;)

&lt;b&gt;its flesh&lt;/b&gt;": i.e.,

that is,

earlier the Torah states the law of absorption of the meat in a "thing that is eaten",

and afterwards — the law of absorption of the meat in a vessel.

And for this reason Rashi teaches that the reason of "it shall be broken" is

(not from the aspect of the severity of the sin-offering,

but)

from the aspect of the prohibition of leftover — because then both laws

("anything that touches its flesh",

"and any earthenware vessel in which it is boiled")

have the same category:

Just as the law of "anything that touches its flesh shall become holy" is not a Scriptural decree due to the severity of the sin-offering — we find the same law also earlier regarding the meal-offering&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt;and Rashi explains&lt;/b&gt; there&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

: lesser holy things or unconsecrated things that touch it &lt;b&gt;and absorb&lt;/b&gt; from it.

shall become holy,

to be like it etc.]

— rather this is a matter &lt;b&gt;of logic&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

that the absorption of

(flavor)

of the flesh affects the thing in which it is absorbed

(and therefore it becomes "like it"),

Similarly, the law of absorption in a vessel of devoted things is not a Scriptural decree

(due to the severity of the sin-offering)

but a matter of logic

(which also applies to other holy things)

— "because the absorption that is absorbed in it becomes leftover".

4.

Based on this, it is also answered why one cannot learn from "yishaver" that "a clay vessel...

does not become free from its mouthful forever" — although the reason of "yishaver" is because of the absorption in it:

Since the law of "and a clay vessel...

yishaver" comes in continuation to the law "all that touches its flesh shall become holy",

it must therefore follow,

that the law of "yishaver" is <b>in the manner of</b> the law of "yikdash": just as through the absorption in the "food item" the food becomes "<b>like it</b>",

so that the laws of the absorbed meat transfer onto the "food item" — so too by the vessel that had absorbed from the meat of the sin-offering,

that the law of "yishaver" is

(not only because of the <b>absorption</b> in it,

but)

also because of the <b>vessel</b>.

Since the vessel has in it the absorption of leftover meat,

there applies upon the <b>vessel</b> a law

(burning²⁴

breaking

(as if it were said that the vessel becomes "leftover meat")²⁵.

And therefore from this law "yishaver" one cannot know that "a clay vessel...

does not ever release from its mouth" — because even if it could indeed have expulsion of the absorbed

(through hag'alah etc.),

there is still the obligation "yishaver" on the vessel because of that which the forbidden absorbed matter effected upon it that it should be "k'mohu",

as above.

Specifically after one knows the law "u'morek v'shoteif" by a copper vessel — that by a copper vessel the expulsion of the absorbed through rinsing and washing is sufficient and there is no obligation to destroy the vessel

(at the time when by a clay vessel the law is not so)

— one learns from this,

that by a clay vessel it is not possible "to expel its absorbed matter",

"the verse taught &lt;b&gt;here&lt;/b&gt; that it does not ever release from its mouth".

5.

It remains however not explained: Since that also the copper vessel had in itself absorption of prohibition of nosar — there should have been placed an obligation of "yishaver" on the <b>vessel</b>

(even after the expulsion of the absorption,

seemingly)?

One could from this have been precise,

that the reason of "yishaver" by an earthenware vessel is

(not a law on the vessel itself,

but)

only because of the absorption

(which cannot be expelled from an earthenware vessel).

— Rashi explains it by interrupting between the two interpretations

(regarding the law of an earthenware vessel and a copper vessel)

with the explanation of the word "ומורק" — "leshon tamrukei hanashim etc.",

which means

(as Rashi translates in Megillas Esther)

"things that polish",

and with this Rashi intends to express that the law of "umorak" is analogous to the law of laundering of the blood of a sin-offering.

That is: the two laws in our verse

(and an earthenware vessel etc., and if in a copper vessel etc.)

are akin to the two laws of the previous verse

(anything that touches etc., and whoever sprinkles of its blood etc.)

a)

The law "and an earthenware vessel etc.",

from which the absorbed [matter] cannot be expelled — is analogous to the law of "anything that touches etc." — "a food item that touches &lt;b&gt;and absorbs&lt;/b&gt; from it",

since from that food item one cannot extract the absorption of the holy flesh,

therefore the law is — "it shall become sacred,

&lt;b&gt;And similar&lt;/b&gt; to this is with an earthenware vessel,

that it becomes "like it"

(like the absorption of leftover [sacrificial meat])

and consequently the vessel incurs an obligation of "it shall be broken".

b)

The law of "And if it is a copper vessel etc." which can itself expel the absorption,

is similar to the law of "And that which is sprinkled from its blood on the garment",

since one can remove the blood from the garment,

the law is

(not "it shall become holy,

&lt;b&gt;to be&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;like it&lt;/b&gt;".

to be like it",

but)

"it shall be washed" —

is similar to this in our matter, since the absorption can be expelled from the copper vessel,

there is no obligation of burning

(—breaking)

of leftover on the vessel,

but only on the absorption²⁷.

6.

Based on this — that "and he shall rinse and wash" is analogous to the law "she shall wash"

(regarding the blood of the sin-offering)

— one may say even more than this,

that by means of what Rashi interrupts between the two explanations with the translation of "and he shall rinse",

he indicates,

that the law of "and he shall rinse and wash" is not analogous to the law of "it shall be broken"

but regarding a vessel of consecrated property

(which "never leaves its mouth's state")

it is through "it shall be broken",

and regarding a copper vessel — through "and he shall rinse and wash"],

But it is a <b>different</b> <b>definition</b>:

Just as the law of "תכבס" regarding the blood of a sin-offering is not connected with a <b>prohibition</b> or <b>invalidity</b> in the blood,

rather, regarding the blood of a sin-offering the Torah innovated that in the case of "יזה מדמה על הבגד" there is an obligation of "תכבס" — so too regarding "ואם בכלי נחושת בושלה",

the obligation of "ומורק ושוטף,

to expel its absorbed [taste]" is <b>not</b> because of the prohibition of <b>נותר</b> in the absorbed [taste]

(as with "כלי חרש אשר תבושל בו"),

but because of the definition of the meat of the sin-offering that is in it,

as follows

(section 7-8).

that by kashering of non-Jewish vessels the language of the verse is²⁸

"Every thing which comes into fire <b>you shall pass through</b> <b>fire</b>"

(as <b>Rashi</b> explains there: according to the manner of its use is its kashering,

that which its use is by hot [water] he shall kasher it in hot [water] etc.),

but here it says "<b>and he shall empty out</b> <b>and rinse</b> in water":

By kashering of a vessel of <b>prohibited</b> [substance] the main intention is to nullify the absorption of the prohibited [substance],

for which "he shall kasher it in hot [water]" is sufficient; but the law of "and he shall empty out and rinse" by a sin-offering is similar to the special law

(by the blood of a sin-offering)

of laundering the garment,

and therefore kashering alone is not sufficient

(which nullifies the absorption),

rather "it shall expel its absorption" must be in a manner of "<b>and he shall empty out</b> <b>and rinse</b> in water"²⁹,

polishing and rinsing out the <b>vessel³⁰</b>

(similar to laundering)].

7.

Will one understand this with an introduction to the aforementioned questions

(end of section a)

— how <b>fits</b> the name "nosar" on "bliah",

and why does the Torah not give the <b>time</b> of "its burning"

("yishaver")?

Rashi warns precisely his language: "because the absorption that is absorbed in it <b>becomes</b> nosar",

what Rashi means here — that with the <b>absorption</b> <b>itself</b> it becomes

(immediately)

nosar.

The explanation in this: the definition of "nosar" in the simple sense is not that eating after its time becomes transformed into a prohibition of nosar,

but rather the meat becomes nosar because of the impossibility of eating.

D.

E.

Regarding sacrificial meat, the Torah conditioned two obligations: the primary obligation is at first — the mitzvah of eating it

(as long as one may eat it)

; but if one cannot eat it — one may not leave it just lying around,

rather one must immediately burn it³¹.

And this is also the explanation regarding absorption: by the very fact that the

(the taste)

meat becomes absorbed in a vessel and becomes "food" — it immediately becomes nosar and one must burn it.

And therefore the law is,

that "an earthenware vessel in which it was cooked shall be broken": the obligation of burning nosar applies to it immediately³²

(which regarding absorption in an earthenware vessel is through "shall be broken"²⁴).

: Why must one break the earthenware vessel because of that which “the absorption that was absorbed in it becomes notar” — according to the approach that “overnight stay impairs”

(which thus is the opinion of Rashi&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;)

— it turns out,

that at that same time

(in the morning)

when upon the meat the prohibition of notar must apply,

it is already then

(being a permitted thing)

a “gives a taste that is impaired”?

According to the above, however, the difficulty from the outset is not,

because according to Rashi

(in his commentary &lt;b&gt;on the Torah&lt;/b&gt;,

where he explains &lt;b&gt;the plain meaning&lt;/b&gt; of the verse)

upon the absorption applies &lt;b&gt;immediately&lt;/b&gt; the prohibition of notar together with the obligation of burning].

8.

Based on this one will understand the difference between an earthenware vessel and a copper vessel:

This definition, that through the absorption itself the prohibition of nosar is created — it can be said³⁵,

is only by an earthenware vessel which "never leaves its [state of] being unfit for its [original] mouth" and it is already impossible that the absorption should come to [the state of] eating in any manner whatsoever — and therefore it becomes nosar.

And this is the content of the obligation of breaking,

a law of burning nosar²⁴,

and as Rashi explains: "Because the absorption that is absorbed in it becomes nosar."

Not so with copper vessels where the absorbed [flavor] can be expelled,

the absorbed [flavor] does not effect the status of notar,

since the possibility of eating has not yet been negated — one can make another dish in the vessel and the absorbed [flavor] that is entirely expelled into that dish can be eaten together with the dish³⁶

And that which a copper vessel requires marikah and shetifah is

(not in order to expel the absorption of <b>prohibited [substance]</b>

(notar³⁷),

but rather)

in order to clean the vessel from the

(taste)

of the flesh of the chatat

(similar to the laundering of the garment from the blood of the chatat).

And this is the continuation in Rashi: First he explains that by a copper vessel the obligation of "ומורק" — "from the cosmetics of women etc." — is analogous to the law of "תכבס",

and &lt;b&gt;this&lt;/b&gt; is the content of "לפלוט את בליעתו" — a matter of "כיבוס"

(not "שריפת נותר")

; and in order to explain the difference,

that by a copper vessel there is no law of נותר due to the absorption as by a clay vessel — Rashi continues "but a clay vessel the verse here teaches you that it never leaves its taste",

which &lt;b&gt;therefore&lt;/b&gt; the absorption in a clay vessel creates נותר.

9.

From this one can derive "wondrous matters" in the manner of halacha,

and in the context of this:

Regarding this law of "and an earthenware vessel etc. shall be broken etc. a copper vessel etc. and be emptied and rinsed etc." there is a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad: according to the opinion of the Rambam&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

the law of "and an earthenware vessel etc. shall be broken" is a Scriptural decree specifically by a sin-offering,

but "emptying and rinsing" is a law by all holy things; the Ra'avad&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

holds however,

that both laws

(an earthenware vessel shall be broken and emptying and rinsing in a copper vessel)

are by all holy things.

What is Rashi's opinion?

By "shall be broken" Rashi says "and the same applies to all holy things",

but by "and be emptied and rinsed in water" Rashi does not say this.

Simply one learns,

that both laws come in one sequence,

and consequently Rashi need not say it again by a copper vessel.

According to the above but — it is specifically

(and the method of Rashi — in study according to the plain meaning — is a third opinion³⁹)

: the law of "yishaver" which is from the aspect of burning of notar applies indeed by all holy offerings; but not so the law of "umorak v'shataf" is according to Rashi

(according to the plain meaning of Scripture)

in analogy to the law of "techabes" which is a special stringency by chatat⁴⁰

(and not from the aspect of the law of notar).

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Tetzaveh 5736)