Sacred Residue
Project Likkutei Sichos | April 06, 2025
Print This Article
View Original PDF

Sacred Residue

Project Likkutei Sichos | June 27, 2025

1. THE STATUS OF EARTHENWARE

Among the laws of a sin offering discussed in our parshah, the Torah states: “An earthenware vessel in which it {a sin offering} was cooked must be broken. But if it was cooked in a copper vessel, the vessel should be scoured and rinsed in water.”

Rashi cites the words “must be broken” and explains: “Because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar. The same law applies to all sacrifices.”

Rashi’s need to (a) explain the reason for the rule that it “must be broken” and (b) add that “the same law applies to all sacrifices” can be explained simply:

The verse “an earthenware vessel...” is a continuation of the previous one, which discusses the law of the “blood of a sin offering” — “and if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment... you shall launder it in a holy place.” This rule only applies to the blood of a sin offering, not to any other type of sacrifice. Based on this limitation, it would make sense to assume that the following verse, “An earthenware vessel...,” is also a rule that applies exclusively to the sin offering. {The verse would be understood in the following manner:} Due to the stringent nature of the sin offering, there is an (immediate) need to expel any absorption in the vessel originating from the sin offering (analogous with the removal of the blood of the sin offering absorbed in a garment). For this reason, the Torah states that an earthenware vessel, from which an absorption cannot be expelled (as Rashi goes on to explain, “an earthenware vessel... can never lose its defective status”) must “be broken,” according to law.

Rashi, however, negates this interpretation. Instead, he states that the law that the vessel “must be broken” is unrelated to the stringent nature of the sin offering. The vessel must be broken because what it absorbed becomes nosar. Accordingly, the same law applies to all sacrifices” (since the principle of nosar applies to all sacrifices) — unlike the rule regarding the blood of the sin offering discussed in the previous verse.

The above reasoning is unclear: What is the proof, from the straightforward understanding of Scripture, that the reason for this halachah is due to the prohibition of nosar (and therefore, “the same law applies to all sacrifices”) and not (as implied by the context of this verse) that this law is exclusive to a sin offering (analogous to the preceding law regarding the blood of the sin offering)?

Moreover, it seems problematic to assume (according to the straightforward meaning of Scripture) that the law mandating that the vessel be broken is due to the issue of nosar, since:

  • On face value, it doesn’t seem to make sense to say that nosar applies to the absorption of the sin offering. “Nosar” usually means the remainder of what was previously eaten — meaning a tangible substance fit for consumption. This would exclude any inedible absorption in the vessel walls, which would not be categorized as “nosar {remainder}” of something edible.
  • If it “must be broken” because of the prohibition of nosar, it would mean that the requirement that it “must be broken” applies (not immediately after the act of cooking, but) only once the time-frame of eating the sacrifice ends (and it becomes nosar). If this was the case, the Torah should have provided the time-frame in which the person must break the vessel (just as Torah provides the time when nosar applies to the meat of the sacrifice)!

2. RASHI’S EXPLANATION

Rashi continues and cites, “u’morak” {“it should be scoured”} and explains: “This word is related to 'tamrukei hanashim’ {‘cosmetics of women’}, escurer in Old French [meaning, a cleanser].” He then cites, “it should be scoured and rinsed,” and explains: “to expel its absorption. But concerning an earthenware vessel, the verse teaches you here that {the vessel} can never lose its defective status.”

This must be explained: Rashi’s explanation of “it should be scoured and rinsed” (“to expel its absorption. But concerning an earthenware vessel...”) seems to be a direct continuation of his prior explanation of “must be broken” (“because the absorption... becomes nosar”). If so, Rashi should have juxtaposed these two interpretations and not interrupted them by explaining the word “u’morak.” [Rashi’s explanation of u’morak could be presented after explaining the meaning of “it should be scoured and rinsed.” As is his style in many places, Rashi first explains the verse’s subject matter and only then does he explain a word’s semantic meaning.]

{Additionally} Rashi’s explanation of “it should be scoured and rinsed” must be clarified:

From Rashi’s conclusion, “But concerning an earthenware vessel, the verse teaches you here that {the vessel} can never lose its defective status,” he implies that if we only had the rule of “must be broken” stated regarding an earthenware vessel, we would not have known that “{the vessel} can never lose its defective status.” This is disclosed only once the Torah states that “it should be scoured and rinsed — to expel its absorption” concerning a copper vessel.

This is puzzling: Why can’t this be derived from “must be broken” itself? Since Rashi himself says that the reason it “must be broken” is because of “what it absorbed,” we now know that the absorption can't be expelled (entirely?) from the earthenware vessel!

[If expelling the absorption were possible, breaking the earthenware vessel would be counterproductive! By breaking it, the absorbed prohibited substance would not be “eliminated from the world,” but would remain in the broken shards, whereas expelling the absorption would eliminate the prohibited substance.]

3. TWO CATEGORIES

We can posit the following explanation:

In this previous verse, the Torah relates two completely distinct laws:

  • One law concerning the meat of the sin offering is that “whatever touches its meat shall become holy.” This refers to (as Rashi explains) “any food that touches and absorbs from it.” And since the (flavor of the) meat of the sin offering is absorbed into the food, the law is (as Rashi explains): “{it} shall become holy — to become like it: If {the sin offering} is invalid, {that which absorbs of it} becomes invalid; and if {the sin offering} is valid, it shall be eaten with the stringency {the sin offering}.”
  • A second law applies to the blood of the sin offering: “and if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment... you shall launder it in a holy place.” Here, the inference is from the word “sprinkled.” We aren’t dealing with a garment that, as a whole, absorbed the blood of the sin offering. Instead, the Torah tells us that since the garment absorbs some blood from a sin offering, the blood must be expunged from the garment by washing it — “launder it.” [For this reason, the obligation is not to launder the entire garment but only “that place of blood” (as Rashi explains).]

Accordingly, when it comes to the next verse, “An earthenware vessel in which it was cooked” — an issue related to the meat secretion being absorbed into the vessel (through the process of cooking) — it makes sense that this scenario does not fall under the umbrella of “if there will have been sprinkled.” Instead, this scenario falls in the same category of the rule that “whatever touches (and absorbs) its meat {shall become holy}.” In other words, the Torah first discusses the rule concerning the absorption of meat into “food.” Only then does it discuss the rule concerning the absorption of meat into a vessel.

This is why Rashi explains that an earthenware vessel “must be broken,” not because of the stringent nature of the sin offering but because of the prohibition of nosar. For now, both rules (“Whatever touches its meat {shall become holy},” and “An earthenware vessel in which it was cooked”) are in the same category:

Just as the rule of “whatever touches its meat shall become holy” is not a scriptural decree due to the stringent nature of the sin offering — there is an identical ruling stated previously concerning a meal-offering [“whatever touches them shall become holy,” and as Rashi explains there: “Holies of the lesser degree of sanctity or that which is not holy which will come into contact with it and absorb of it, shall become holy, to become like it...”] — but based upon logic. Logically, the absorbed (flavor) of the meat affects the object into which it was absorbed (and it therefore becomes “like it”);

The same applies to the case of the earthenware vessel: This rule is not a scriptural decree (because of the stringent nature of the sin offering) but is predicated on logic (and is something that also applies to all other sacrifices) — “because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar.”

Therefore, even according to the straightforward understanding of Scripture, it is logical that this law applies to all sacrifices (analyzed from a halachic perspective, see Zevachim 97b ff.).”

We can posit that this is the reason Rashi repeats his explanation concerning a sin offering — to emphasize that it is not a scriptural decree concerning a meal-offering (see Zevachim 98a regarding the need to write {the halachah of absorption with regard to} both a meal-offering and a sin offering).

4. THE VESSEL ITSELF

In light of the above explanation, we can now explain why the principle that “an earthenware vessel... can never lose its defective status” can’t be deduced from the verse ruling that it “must be broken” {and it must be deduced from the following words of the verse} — even though it “must be broken” because of its absorption:

Since the rule that “an earthenware vessel... must be broken” follows the ruling “Whatever touches its meat shall become holy,” it logically follows that the ruling of it “must be broken” must be similar to the ruling of “shall become holy”: Just as by being absorbed into a “food,” the food becomes “like it,” with the guidelines of the absorbed meat now being applied to the “food” — the same applies to the earthenware vessel. An earthenware vessel that absorbs the flavor of a sin offering’s meat “must be broken,” not only because of the vessel’s absorption but also because of the vessel itself. Since the vessel walls have absorbed nosar, the vessel is now subject to (burning — {or in the context of a vessel}) breaking (as if the vessel itself is now “nosar”).

And this is why the law of it “must be broken” cannot be the source for “an earthenware vessel... can never lose its defective status”: For even if it would be possible to expel all of the sin offering’s absorption (through a process of purging with boiling water, or the like) the obligation that the vessel “must be broken” would still apply! After absorbing the prohibited substance, the vessel became “like it,” as discussed above.

Only once we are taught the rule of “it should be scoured and rinsed in water” by a copper vessel — that for a copper vessel, it suffices to extract the absorption through scouring and rinsing, and there is no need to destroy the vessel (whereas an earthenware vessel is subject to different rules) — can we now deduce that it is impossible for an earthenware vessel “to expel its absorption.” And “the verse teaches you here that {the vessel} can never lose its defective status.”

5. HOW DEEP?

However, another difficulty must be clarified: Since the copper vessel also absorbed nosar, the obligation to break it should also apply to the vessel itself (even after the absorption is expelled from the vessel)!

{The fact that this is not the case} seems to indicate that the reason an earthenware vessel “must be broken” is (not because the vessel itself must be broken, but rather) only due to the absorption (which cannot be expelled from an earthenware vessel).

Rashi addresses this very point by interjecting his semantic explanation of the word “u’morak {it should be scoured} between these two explanations (the explanations of an earthenware vessel and a copper vessel), Rashi says, “This is related to tamrukei hanashim”; namely, (as Rashi elucidates in Megillas Esther) “a cleanser.” With this explanation, Rashi emphasizes that the rule of “it should be scoured” is analogous to the obligation of laundering the blood of the sin offering.

In other words, the two laws conveyed in the verse (an earthenware vessel... but if it was cooked in a copper vessel...) resemble the two laws in the previous verse (whatever touches... and if there will have been sprinkled from its blood...):

  • The law of “an earthenware vessel...” — a vessel that cannot expel what it absorbs — corresponds to the law of “whatever touches... — Any food which will touch and absorb from it.” Since the flavor of the sacrifice absorbed by the food cannot be expunged, the law is that it “shall become holy — to become like it.” A similar law applies to an earthenware vessel. It becomes “like it” (takes on the status of the absorbed nosar), and consequently, breaking the vessel becomes obligatory.
  • The law concerning a “copper vessel...” — a vessel that can discharge what it absorbs — is analogous to the law “if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment.” Since the blood can be removed from the garment, the law is (not that it “shall become holy — to become like it,” but that ) “you shall launder it.” And a similar disposition is applied here: Since the absorbed matter can be expelled from the copper vessel, the obligation to burn (or in this case, break) the nosar does not apply to the vessel, only to what the vessel absorbed.

6. TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

In light of this explanation — that “it should be scoured and rinsed” aligns with the ruling that “you shall launder it” (concerning the blood of the sin offering) — we can take this a step further: By interposing an elucidation of the word “scoured between the two explanations {of “must be broken” and “it should be scoured...”}, Rashi intends to highlight that the law of “it should be scoured and rinsed” is not just dissimilar to the law of “must be broken” but is in a completely different category:

[We would have said {if not for this interposition} that both actions accomplish the same thing, removing the nosar — {the only difference being that} with an earthenware vessel (which “can never lose its defective status”) the removal of the nosar is is accomplished through breaking the vessel. In contrast, with a copper vessel, the removal is accomplished by scouring and rinsing the copper vessel.]

To explain:

The ruling of “you shall launder it” stated concerning the blood of the sin offering is not due to something prohibited or invalid in the blood. Instead, the Torah introduced a novel ruling about the blood of the sin offering, that “if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment,” then there is an obligation that “you shall launder it”; the same applies “if it was cooked in a copper vessel.” Likewise, the obligation introduced by the clause “it should be scoured and rinsed — to expel its absorption” was not imposed because of the prohibition of nosar in the absorbed flavor (as is the case for “an earthenware vessel in which it was cooked”) but because of the status of the meat of the sin offering that was absorbed, as explained below (Section 7-8).

[We can now understand why when it comes to purging non-kosher food, the verse uses the expression, “everything that comes into fire — you shall pass through fire” (and as Rashi explains there: “Its purging is done in the same manner as its use. That which is used with hot water, he shall purge it with hot water...”) but in our context, the Torah says “it should be scoured and rinsed in water”:

When purging something forbidden, the primary goal is to eliminate the prohibited substance that was absorbed. For that, it is enough to just “purge it with hot water.” In contrast, the ruling “it should be scoured and rinsed” concerning a sin offering is like the unique law (of the blood of a sin offering) of laundering the garment. Therefore, just using hot water is not enough (an action that nullifies the absorbed substance). Instead, “to expel its absorption” must be done in a manner of “scoured and rinsed in water,” to cleanse and flush out the vessel (like laundering).]

7. AN IMMEDIATE PROCESS

This will be understood by first addressing the questions raised above (at the end of Section 1): How does the designation of nosar apply to something “absorbed,” and why doesn’t the Torah provide a time-frame for “its burning” (— “must be broken”)?

Rashi addresses these questions with his nuanced terminology: “Because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar,” meaning by being absorbed, it (immediately) becomes nosar.

The explanation: The straightforward classification of “nosar” isn’t that eating the sacrifice after its allotted time transforms it into an object of nosar, but rather that the meat becomes nosar because it is not allowed to be eaten. Meaning: Two obligations apply to sacrificial meat: The primary obligation is first and foremost — to eat it (when permissible); however, when it can not be eaten, it may not be left — it must be immediately burnt.

This also sheds light on the flavor absorbed into the vessel: When the (flavor of the) meat is absorbed into the vessel and leaves the status of “food,” it immediately becomes nosar and must be promptly burned. Accordingly, the law states, “an earthenware vessel in which it was cooked must be broken.” The obligation to burn the nosar applies immediately (and the act of burning in this context is carried out by breaking it).

[This demonstrates how Rashi anticipates and deflects a complex discussion among the commentators with his precise terminology: Re’em raises a question on Rashi’s interpretation:

Why must the earthenware vessel be broken on account of “what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar,” if according to the opinion (which Rashi agrees with) that {any secretion from food} “left overnight ruins {the flavor},” it would follow that at that moment (in the morning) when the prohibition of nosar would take effect, the absorbed flavor is already permitted because it “imparts a detrimental flavor”!

However, based on the above explanation, there is no question to begin with: According to Rashi (in his commentary on Torah, where he addresses the straightforward meaning of Scripture), the prohibition of nosar applies to the absorbed flavor immediately, along with the obligation to burn it.]

8. AN EARTHENWARE VESSEL AND A COPPER VESSEL

We can now understand the distinction between an earthenware vessel and a copper one:

Based on the above explanation — that the absorption itself creates the issue of nosar — we can posit that this only applies to earthenware vessels, which “can never lose its defective status.” Since it immediately becomes evident that it is impossible for the absorbed flavor ever to be consumed in any form, it is straightaway considered nosar. And this is the reason the vessel must be broken as part of the obligation to burn nosar — as Rashi says, “because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar.”

The same cannot be said of the copper vessel. When it comes to a copper vessel, the absorbed substance can be removed. Therefore, the absorption does not trigger the status of nosar, for it remains possible to consume the absorption. For instance, another food could be cooked in that copper vessel, and all of the absorbed flavor could be exuded into this food and consumed together with it.

And the reason a copper vessel must be scoured and rinsed is (not to remove something forbidden [nosar], but) to cleanse the vessel from the (flavor of the) meat of the sin offering (like the need to launder the garment from the blood of the sin offering).

1. THE STATUS OF EARTHENWARE

Among the laws of a sin offering discussed in our parshah, the Torah states: “An earthenware vessel in which it {a sin offering} was cooked must be broken. But if it was cooked in a copper vessel, the vessel should be scoured and rinsed in water.”

Rashi cites the words “must be broken” and explains: “Because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar. The same law applies to all sacrifices.”

Rashi’s need to (a) explain the reason for the rule that it “must be broken” and (b) add that “the same law applies to all sacrifices” can be explained simply:

The verse “an earthenware vessel...” is a continuation of the previous one, which discusses the law of the “blood of a sin offering” — “and if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment... you shall launder it in a holy place.” This rule only applies to the blood of a sin offering, not to any other type of sacrifice. Based on this limitation, it would make sense to assume that the following verse, “An earthenware vessel...,” is also a rule that applies exclusively to the sin offering. {The verse would be understood in the following manner:} Due to the stringent nature of the sin offering, there is an (immediate) need to expel any absorption in the vessel originating from the sin offering (analogous with the removal of the blood of the sin offering absorbed in a garment). For this reason, the Torah states that an earthenware vessel, from which an absorption cannot be expelled (as Rashi goes on to explain, “an earthenware vessel... can never lose its defective status”) must “be broken,” according to law.

Rashi, however, negates this interpretation. Instead, he states that the law that the vessel “must be broken” is unrelated to the stringent nature of the sin offering. The vessel must be broken because what it absorbed becomes nosar. Accordingly, the same law applies to all sacrifices” (since the principle of nosar applies to all sacrifices) — unlike the rule regarding the blood of the sin offering discussed in the previous verse.

The above reasoning is unclear: What is the proof, from the straightforward understanding of Scripture, that the reason for this halachah is due to the prohibition of nosar (and therefore, “the same law applies to all sacrifices”) and not (as implied by the context of this verse) that this law is exclusive to a sin offering (analogous to the preceding law regarding the blood of the sin offering)?

Moreover, it seems problematic to assume (according to the straightforward meaning of Scripture) that the law mandating that the vessel be broken is due to the issue of nosar, since:

  • On face value, it doesn’t seem to make sense to say that nosar applies to the absorption of the sin offering. “Nosar” usually means the remainder of what was previously eaten — meaning a tangible substance fit for consumption. This would exclude any inedible absorption in the vessel walls, which would not be categorized as “nosar {remainder}” of something edible.
  • If it “must be broken” because of the prohibition of nosar, it would mean that the requirement that it “must be broken” applies (not immediately after the act of cooking, but) only once the time-frame of eating the sacrifice ends (and it becomes nosar). If this was the case, the Torah should have provided the time-frame in which the person must break the vessel (just as Torah provides the time when nosar applies to the meat of the sacrifice)!

2. RASHI’S EXPLANATION

Rashi continues and cites, “u’morak” {“it should be scoured”} and explains: “This word is related to 'tamrukei hanashim’ {‘cosmetics of women’}, escurer in Old French [meaning, a cleanser].” He then cites, “it should be scoured and rinsed,” and explains: “to expel its absorption. But concerning an earthenware vessel, the verse teaches you here that {the vessel} can never lose its defective status.”

This must be explained: Rashi’s explanation of “it should be scoured and rinsed” (“to expel its absorption. But concerning an earthenware vessel...”) seems to be a direct continuation of his prior explanation of “must be broken” (“because the absorption... becomes nosar”). If so, Rashi should have juxtaposed these two interpretations and not interrupted them by explaining the word “u’morak.” [Rashi’s explanation of u’morak could be presented after explaining the meaning of “it should be scoured and rinsed.” As is his style in many places, Rashi first explains the verse’s subject matter and only then does he explain a word’s semantic meaning.]

{Additionally} Rashi’s explanation of “it should be scoured and rinsed” must be clarified:

From Rashi’s conclusion, “But concerning an earthenware vessel, the verse teaches you here that {the vessel} can never lose its defective status,” he implies that if we only had the rule of “must be broken” stated regarding an earthenware vessel, we would not have known that “{the vessel} can never lose its defective status.” This is disclosed only once the Torah states that “it should be scoured and rinsed — to expel its absorption” concerning a copper vessel.

This is puzzling: Why can’t this be derived from “must be broken” itself? Since Rashi himself says that the reason it “must be broken” is because of “what it absorbed,” we now know that the absorption can't be expelled (entirely?) from the earthenware vessel!

[If expelling the absorption were possible, breaking the earthenware vessel would be counterproductive! By breaking it, the absorbed prohibited substance would not be “eliminated from the world,” but would remain in the broken shards, whereas expelling the absorption would eliminate the prohibited substance.]

3. TWO CATEGORIES

We can posit the following explanation:

In this previous verse, the Torah relates two completely distinct laws:

  • One law concerning the meat of the sin offering is that “whatever touches its meat shall become holy.” This refers to (as Rashi explains) “any food that touches and absorbs from it.” And since the (flavor of the) meat of the sin offering is absorbed into the food, the law is (as Rashi explains): “{it} shall become holy — to become like it: If {the sin offering} is invalid, {that which absorbs of it} becomes invalid; and if {the sin offering} is valid, it shall be eaten with the stringency {the sin offering}.”
  • A second law applies to the blood of the sin offering: “and if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment... you shall launder it in a holy place.” Here, the inference is from the word “sprinkled.” We aren’t dealing with a garment that, as a whole, absorbed the blood of the sin offering. Instead, the Torah tells us that since the garment absorbs some blood from a sin offering, the blood must be expunged from the garment by washing it — “launder it.” [For this reason, the obligation is not to launder the entire garment but only “that place of blood” (as Rashi explains).]

Accordingly, when it comes to the next verse, “An earthenware vessel in which it was cooked” — an issue related to the meat secretion being absorbed into the vessel (through the process of cooking) — it makes sense that this scenario does not fall under the umbrella of “if there will have been sprinkled.” Instead, this scenario falls in the same category of the rule that “whatever touches (and absorbs) its meat {shall become holy}.” In other words, the Torah first discusses the rule concerning the absorption of meat into “food.” Only then does it discuss the rule concerning the absorption of meat into a vessel.

This is why Rashi explains that an earthenware vessel “must be broken,” not because of the stringent nature of the sin offering but because of the prohibition of nosar. For now, both rules (“Whatever touches its meat {shall become holy},” and “An earthenware vessel in which it was cooked”) are in the same category:

Just as the rule of “whatever touches its meat shall become holy” is not a scriptural decree due to the stringent nature of the sin offering — there is an identical ruling stated previously concerning a meal-offering [“whatever touches them shall become holy,” and as Rashi explains there: “Holies of the lesser degree of sanctity or that which is not holy which will come into contact with it and absorb of it, shall become holy, to become like it...”] — but based upon logic. Logically, the absorbed (flavor) of the meat affects the object into which it was absorbed (and it therefore becomes “like it”);

The same applies to the case of the earthenware vessel: This rule is not a scriptural decree (because of the stringent nature of the sin offering) but is predicated on logic (and is something that also applies to all other sacrifices) — “because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar.”

Therefore, even according to the straightforward understanding of Scripture, it is logical that this law applies to all sacrifices (analyzed from a halachic perspective, see Zevachim 97b ff.).”

We can posit that this is the reason Rashi repeats his explanation concerning a sin offering — to emphasize that it is not a scriptural decree concerning a meal-offering (see Zevachim 98a regarding the need to write {the halachah of absorption with regard to} both a meal-offering and a sin offering).

4. THE VESSEL ITSELF

In light of the above explanation, we can now explain why the principle that “an earthenware vessel... can never lose its defective status” can’t be deduced from the verse ruling that it “must be broken” {and it must be deduced from the following words of the verse} — even though it “must be broken” because of its absorption:

Since the rule that “an earthenware vessel... must be broken” follows the ruling “Whatever touches its meat shall become holy,” it logically follows that the ruling of it “must be broken” must be similar to the ruling of “shall become holy”: Just as by being absorbed into a “food,” the food becomes “like it,” with the guidelines of the absorbed meat now being applied to the “food” — the same applies to the earthenware vessel. An earthenware vessel that absorbs the flavor of a sin offering’s meat “must be broken,” not only because of the vessel’s absorption but also because of the vessel itself. Since the vessel walls have absorbed nosar, the vessel is now subject to (burning — {or in the context of a vessel}) breaking (as if the vessel itself is now “nosar”).

And this is why the law of it “must be broken” cannot be the source for “an earthenware vessel... can never lose its defective status”: For even if it would be possible to expel all of the sin offering’s absorption (through a process of purging with boiling water, or the like) the obligation that the vessel “must be broken” would still apply! After absorbing the prohibited substance, the vessel became “like it,” as discussed above.

Only once we are taught the rule of “it should be scoured and rinsed in water” by a copper vessel — that for a copper vessel, it suffices to extract the absorption through scouring and rinsing, and there is no need to destroy the vessel (whereas an earthenware vessel is subject to different rules) — can we now deduce that it is impossible for an earthenware vessel “to expel its absorption.” And “the verse teaches you here that {the vessel} can never lose its defective status.”

5. HOW DEEP?

However, another difficulty must be clarified: Since the copper vessel also absorbed nosar, the obligation to break it should also apply to the vessel itself (even after the absorption is expelled from the vessel)!

{The fact that this is not the case} seems to indicate that the reason an earthenware vessel “must be broken” is (not because the vessel itself must be broken, but rather) only due to the absorption (which cannot be expelled from an earthenware vessel).

Rashi addresses this very point by interjecting his semantic explanation of the word “u’morak {it should be scoured} between these two explanations (the explanations of an earthenware vessel and a copper vessel), Rashi says, “This is related to tamrukei hanashim”; namely, (as Rashi elucidates in Megillas Esther) “a cleanser.” With this explanation, Rashi emphasizes that the rule of “it should be scoured” is analogous to the obligation of laundering the blood of the sin offering.

In other words, the two laws conveyed in the verse (an earthenware vessel... but if it was cooked in a copper vessel...) resemble the two laws in the previous verse (whatever touches... and if there will have been sprinkled from its blood...):

  • The law of “an earthenware vessel...” — a vessel that cannot expel what it absorbs — corresponds to the law of “whatever touches... — Any food which will touch and absorb from it.” Since the flavor of the sacrifice absorbed by the food cannot be expunged, the law is that it “shall become holy — to become like it.” A similar law applies to an earthenware vessel. It becomes “like it” (takes on the status of the absorbed nosar), and consequently, breaking the vessel becomes obligatory.
  • The law concerning a “copper vessel...” — a vessel that can discharge what it absorbs — is analogous to the law “if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment.” Since the blood can be removed from the garment, the law is (not that it “shall become holy — to become like it,” but that ) “you shall launder it.” And a similar disposition is applied here: Since the absorbed matter can be expelled from the copper vessel, the obligation to burn (or in this case, break) the nosar does not apply to the vessel, only to what the vessel absorbed.

6. TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES

In light of this explanation — that “it should be scoured and rinsed” aligns with the ruling that “you shall launder it” (concerning the blood of the sin offering) — we can take this a step further: By interposing an elucidation of the word “scoured between the two explanations {of “must be broken” and “it should be scoured...”}, Rashi intends to highlight that the law of “it should be scoured and rinsed” is not just dissimilar to the law of “must be broken” but is in a completely different category:

[We would have said {if not for this interposition} that both actions accomplish the same thing, removing the nosar — {the only difference being that} with an earthenware vessel (which “can never lose its defective status”) the removal of the nosar is is accomplished through breaking the vessel. In contrast, with a copper vessel, the removal is accomplished by scouring and rinsing the copper vessel.]

To explain:

The ruling of “you shall launder it” stated concerning the blood of the sin offering is not due to something prohibited or invalid in the blood. Instead, the Torah introduced a novel ruling about the blood of the sin offering, that “if there will have been sprinkled from its blood on the garment,” then there is an obligation that “you shall launder it”; the same applies “if it was cooked in a copper vessel.” Likewise, the obligation introduced by the clause “it should be scoured and rinsed — to expel its absorption” was not imposed because of the prohibition of nosar in the absorbed flavor (as is the case for “an earthenware vessel in which it was cooked”) but because of the status of the meat of the sin offering that was absorbed, as explained below (Section 7-8).

[We can now understand why when it comes to purging non-kosher food, the verse uses the expression, “everything that comes into fire — you shall pass through fire” (and as Rashi explains there: “Its purging is done in the same manner as its use. That which is used with hot water, he shall purge it with hot water...”) but in our context, the Torah says “it should be scoured and rinsed in water”:

When purging something forbidden, the primary goal is to eliminate the prohibited substance that was absorbed. For that, it is enough to just “purge it with hot water.” In contrast, the ruling “it should be scoured and rinsed” concerning a sin offering is like the unique law (of the blood of a sin offering) of laundering the garment. Therefore, just using hot water is not enough (an action that nullifies the absorbed substance). Instead, “to expel its absorption” must be done in a manner of “scoured and rinsed in water,” to cleanse and flush out the vessel (like laundering).]

7. AN IMMEDIATE PROCESS

This will be understood by first addressing the questions raised above (at the end of Section 1): How does the designation of nosar apply to something “absorbed,” and why doesn’t the Torah provide a time-frame for “its burning” (— “must be broken”)?

Rashi addresses these questions with his nuanced terminology: “Because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar,” meaning by being absorbed, it (immediately) becomes nosar.

The explanation: The straightforward classification of “nosar” isn’t that eating the sacrifice after its allotted time transforms it into an object of nosar, but rather that the meat becomes nosar because it is not allowed to be eaten. Meaning: Two obligations apply to sacrificial meat: The primary obligation is first and foremost — to eat it (when permissible); however, when it can not be eaten, it may not be left — it must be immediately burnt.

This also sheds light on the flavor absorbed into the vessel: When the (flavor of the) meat is absorbed into the vessel and leaves the status of “food,” it immediately becomes nosar and must be promptly burned. Accordingly, the law states, “an earthenware vessel in which it was cooked must be broken.” The obligation to burn the nosar applies immediately (and the act of burning in this context is carried out by breaking it).

[This demonstrates how Rashi anticipates and deflects a complex discussion among the commentators with his precise terminology: Re’em raises a question on Rashi’s interpretation:

Why must the earthenware vessel be broken on account of “what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar,” if according to the opinion (which Rashi agrees with) that {any secretion from food} “left overnight ruins {the flavor},” it would follow that at that moment (in the morning) when the prohibition of nosar would take effect, the absorbed flavor is already permitted because it “imparts a detrimental flavor”!

However, based on the above explanation, there is no question to begin with: According to Rashi (in his commentary on Torah, where he addresses the straightforward meaning of Scripture), the prohibition of nosar applies to the absorbed flavor immediately, along with the obligation to burn it.]

8. AN EARTHENWARE VESSEL AND A COPPER VESSEL

We can now understand the distinction between an earthenware vessel and a copper one:

Based on the above explanation — that the absorption itself creates the issue of nosar — we can posit that this only applies to earthenware vessels, which “can never lose its defective status.” Since it immediately becomes evident that it is impossible for the absorbed flavor ever to be consumed in any form, it is straightaway considered nosar. And this is the reason the vessel must be broken as part of the obligation to burn nosar — as Rashi says, “because what was absorbed by the vessel becomes nosar.”

The same cannot be said of the copper vessel. When it comes to a copper vessel, the absorbed substance can be removed. Therefore, the absorption does not trigger the status of nosar, for it remains possible to consume the absorption. For instance, another food could be cooked in that copper vessel, and all of the absorbed flavor could be exuded into this food and consumed together with it.

And the reason a copper vessel must be scoured and rinsed is (not to remove something forbidden [nosar], but) to cleanse the vessel from the (flavor of the) meat of the sin offering (like the need to launder the garment from the blood of the sin offering).

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Project Likkutei Sichos | April 06, 2025