From the above explanation, we can glean wondrous ideas in the field of halachah. To preface:
There is a dispute between Rambam and Raavad regarding the rule that “an earthenware vessel... must be broken..., a copper vessel... scoured and rinsed...”: According to Rambam, the halachah that “an earthenware vessel... must be broken” is a scriptural decree that only applies to an absorption from a sin offering. “Scouring and rinsing,” however, applies to absorptions from all sacrifices. Raavad, on the other hand, maintains that both laws (an earthenware vessel must be broken, and a copper vessel must be scoured and rinsed) apply to absorbtions from all sacrifices.
What is Rashi’s opinion? Regarding the obligation to break a vessel, Rashi says, “the same law applies to all sacrifices,” whereas when it comes to scouring and rinsing the vessel in water, he doesn’t mention that the law applies to all sacrifices. Simply understood, we learn that since both laws are part of one continuation, Rashi didn’t need to repeat the clause regarding copper vessels.
However, in light of the above explanation, Rashi’s choice of words is precise (and Rashi — following the simple understanding of the verse — holds a third opinion): The law that the vessel “must be broken” due to the requirement to burn nosar indeed applies to all sacrifices {not just a sin offering}. In contrast, the rule to scour and rinse a {non-earthenware} vessel is, according to Rashi (following the simple understanding of the verse), analogous to the rule that the garment must be laundered. Namely, it is a special stringency applicable only to a sin offering (unrelated to the nosar rule).
— From a talk given on Shabbos, parshas Tzav, 5736 (1976)
