Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 96

1) REMOVING THE ABSORBED "ISUR" FROM EARTHENWARE VESSELS

QUESTION: The Gemara concludes that there is a way to permit earthenware vessels, Klei Cheres, which absorbed forbidden food items. By heating the entire vessel, such as in a furnace, the Isur absorbed in the walls of the vessel is removed. The Gemara asks why Rav teaches us that there is no way to permit, during Pesach, the use of earthenware vessels that absorbed Chametz. Why can we not heat them until their insides are as hot as the furnace? The Gemara answers that we do not trust that the owner will heat the inside of the vessel sufficiently, because he is fearful that such heat might cause them to break.

The Gemara asks that according to this, why do we find that the earthenware vessels that were used in the Beis ha'Mikdash were broken? Why did they not simply heat them up in a furnace to remove the Beli'ah that was absorbed into them?

Rashi explains that the Gemara is not bothered by the verse which tells the Jewish people in the Midbar to shatter earthenware vessels that were used to cook Korbanos, since, in the Midbar, the Jewish people had no furnaces while they were traveling, and therefore they had no choice but to break them. In the Beis ha'Mikdash, though, when they were settled they had furnaces, they should put the vessels in the furnaces in order to remove the Isur.

The Gemara answers that in the Beis ha'Mikdash they also did not have the option to put the vessels in furnaces, since furnaces are not allowed to be built in Yerushalayim because of the smoke they produce. (It is not considered an option to take the vessels out of Yerushalayim and heat them, because a vessel with a Beli'ah is not supposed to be removed from Yerushalayim, and the Beli'ah is supposed to be removed while the vessel is in the Beis ha'Mikdash (or in Yerushalayim).)

We may ask a number of questions on this Gemara.

(a) Why does the Gemara suggest that the Klei Cheres in the Beis ha'Mikdash should become permitted by placing them in furnaces to remove their Beli'ah? The Gemara just taught that we do not trust a person to heat a Kli Cheres hot enough that it will remove the absorbed Isur, since the person might not heat it enough in order to prevent the pot from breaking! The same should apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash; we should not permit heating the pot, less the person heat it insufficiently! (ROSH to Pesachim 2:7)

(b) To remove the absorbed Isur it is not necessary to place the Kli Cheres into a furnace. The Gemara makes it clear that as long as the inside is heated up such that it is as hot as the furnace, the Isur will be removed. The Gemara in Pesachim (30b) states explicitly that when a Kli Cheres is filled up with coals, the Isur is removed, because the coals make the Kli as hot as a furnace makes it. How, then, does the Gemara answer its question about the Kelim in the Beis ha'Mikdash? While it is true that the Kli cannot be put in a furnace since there are none in Yerushalayim, the Isur, however, can still be removed by filling the Kli with coals! (SHA'AR HA'MELECH, Hilchos Chametz u'Matzah 8:25)

ANSWERS:

(a) There are a number of approaches to our first question.

1. The ROSH proves from this Gemara in the name of "Avi ha'Ezri" that the Gemara does not prohibit putting a Kli Cheres into a furnace; it only prohibits filling a Kli Cheres with coals or heating it in another way that might heat the outside of the vessel without heating the inside. In such cases, we are worried that the person will take measures to prevent the inside from overheating so that it not break. However, if he places the Kli Cheres in a furnace, the furnace will obviously heat the entire Kli Cheres to a sufficient degree, and there is no reason to be concerned that the person will try to keep his Kli Cheres cool. This is why the Gemara asks that the Kelim in the Mikdash should be permitted by placing them in a *furnace* (and it does not suggest any other form of heating them), which is permitted l'Chatchilah to remove the Beli'ah from Kli Cheres.

This might also be the intention of TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (34a, DH she'Eino).

2. However, not all Rishonim agree with this approach. The Rosh cites the RA'AVAN who writes that an Isur may not be removed from a Kli Cheres even by placing it in a furnace, since the person might try to prevent the Kli from breaking. The RAN in Pesachim (30b) similarly writes that placing a Kli Cheres in a furnace is not an option for removing an Isur, except in the Beis ha'Mikdash. According to these Rishonim, why should the Gemara suggest that removing the Isur in such a manner should be permitted in the Mikdash, if it is not permitted elsewhere because of the concern that the person will attempt to protect his vessel?

The PRI CHADASH (OC 451) answers that it seems that in the Beis ha'Mikdash we are not concerned that the person will not heat the Kli properly, either because "Kohanim Zerizim Hem" -- Kohanim are very careful to carry out the Mitzvos properly, or because they Kohanim are not the owners of the Kelim and they have nothing to lose if the Kelim break, and therefore they will not try to protect the Kelim from breaking. The TESHUVAH ME'AHAVAH (1:77) suggests that the reason we are not concerned that the person will not heat the Kli properly in the Beis ha'Mikdash is because "Ein Shevus ba'Mikdash" -- Gezeiros d'Rabanan normally do not apply in the Beis ha'Mikdash in general, and that is why the Gemara asks that we should permit placing the Kli Cheres in a furnace l'Chatchilah in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

(b) The answer to the second question depends on the two opinions that we mentioned above.

1. According to the Rosh, the Gemara does not suggest that a Kli Cheres should be permitted in the Mikdash by filling it with coals, because we are concerned that one will not heat the inside of the vessel properly out of fear that it might break. As the Rosh explains, the Gemara asks only that we should permit the Kli by putting it in a furnace, since in a furnace there is no concern that the person will not heat the Kli to the proper degree.

This does not answer the question entirely, though. We may still ask why the Torah requires that one break a Kli Cheres that absorbed Isur in the Mishkan (in the Midbar). Although it is true that in the Mishkan they did not have furnaces available, as Rashi explains, nevertheless they certainly could have filled the Kli with coals. We cannot answer that the Torah was concerned that the person might not heat the Kli properly, because it is clear from the Gemara that this concern is only mid'Rabanan; mid'Oraisa, though, we do not find that the Torah makes such a preventative measure. Why, then, does the Torah require that the Kli Cheres be broken? (TESHUVAH ME'AHAVAH)

However, as the SHA'AR HA'MELECH points out, this question is answered by the words of TOSFOS (end of DH Ela). Tosfos disagrees with Rashi and says that the reason why the Torah does not say that, in the Midbar, a Kli Cheres should be placed in a furnace to remove the Isur absorbed in it, is not because there were no furnaces available. Rather the Torah is teaching that it is not *necessary* to place the Kli in a furnace, but it suffices merely to break the Kli. We might have thought that it does not suffice to break the Kli, since the taste of the Isur still remains in the broken pieces of the Kli. The Torah therefore teaches that breaking the Kli suffices, and we do not have to remove the Isur from the pieces of the Kli. It is certainly sufficient, therefore, to place coals in the Kli, which serves to actually remove the absorbed Isur. (See MA'ASEH CHOSHEV in his notes to the Sha'ar ha'Melech who discusses this answer of Tosfos at length.)

2. According to the other Rishonim, however, the question remains -- even if there are no furnaces in Yerushalayim, we should permit the earthenware vessels by filling them with coals. Since Kohanim are Zerizim, we are not concerned that they will not heat the vessels sufficiently.

The SHA'AR HA'MELECH answers that apparently there is a much greater concern that a Kli Cheres will not heat sufficiently when it is filled with coals than there is when the Kli Cheres is placed in a furnace, as is evident from the view of the Rosh. Therefore, even the Ra'avan and others who maintain that in the Beis ha'Mikdash we are not concerned that the Kli Cheres will not be heated properly in the furnace (since Kohanim are Zerizim, or because they are not the owners of the Kli), nevertheless we are concerned that the vessel will not be heated sufficiently when filled with coals, since it is much more difficult to heat the vessel in such a manner without causing it to break.

The BENEI CHAYI, cited by the Sha'ar ha'Melech and YAD DAVID, suggests a different approach. Perhaps filling the Kli with coals will not serve as a substitute for breaking the Kli, because there is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that teaches that even if what was absorbed is removed from the Kli, the Kli must still be broken. (This was the subject of the Gemara's question on 95b.) Therefore, even after the Beli'ah is removed by way of the coals, the Kli must still be broken. Why, then, does the Gemara suggest that the Kli should be returned to the furnace instead of being broken? Even if the furnace removes the Beli'ah, the Kli must still be broken! The answer to this can be found in Tosfos here, who explains that returning a Kli to the furnace not only removes the Beli'ah, but it essentially re-makes the Kli in its entirety, so that it is no longer the same Kli that it used to be, but rather it is considered to be a new Kli ("Panim Chadashos"). This can take the place of Shevirah. However, it is clear from the Rosh (Pesachim 2:7) that filling a Kli with coals does not make it into a new Kli. Therefore, filling a Kli with coals will not be a proper substitute for Shevirah. That is why the Gemara does not ask that we should fill the Kelim of Kodshim with coals. (See Sha'ar ha'Melech and Yad David, who discuss this answer at length.)

96b

OPINIONS: The Gemara presents a Machlokes Tana'im recorded in a Beraisa (97a) regarding whether Merikah is done with hot water and Shetifah is done with cold water, or whether both are done with cold water. The Mishnah teaches that Merikah and Shetifah are both done with cold water (this is the opinion of Rebbi in the Beraisa on 97a). The Mishnah adds that Merikah is like "Merikas ha'Kos" -- it is done similar to the way that Merikah is performed with a cup, and Shetifah is like "Shetifas ha'Kos."

What is the difference between Merikah and Shetifah? It cannot merely be that Merikah is done with hot water, since Rebbi says that Merikah is done with cold water.

The Mishnah appears to be addressing this issue when it says that Merikah is like the Merikah of a cup, and Shetifah is like the Shetifah of a cup. However, it does not explain what the Merikah or Shetifah of a cup is, nor does it explain what cup it is discussing.

(a) RASHI explains that the cup that the Mishnah mentions is a "Kos Shel Berachah," the cup that is held while reciting Birkas ha'Mazon, Kidush, etc. Merikah refers to Hadachah, the washing of the inside of the Kos Shel Berachah, and Shetifah refers to washing the outside of the Kos Shel Berachah, as the Gemara in Berachos (51a) requires.

In the Beraisa (97a), Rebbi derives from the fact that the Torah uses two different words, "u'Morak v'Shutaf" (Vayikra 6:21), that Merikah is like the Merikah of a cup and Shetifah is like the Shetifah of a cup. However, the Rabanan in the Beraisa derive from the two different words that Merikah is done with hot water and Shetifah is done with cold water. It appears that the difference between Merikah and Shetifah is the subject of the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabanan. The Rabanan say that the difference between the two is that Merikah is done with hot water while Shetifah is done with cold water. Rebbi says that the difference between the two is that one is performed on the inside of the Kli and the other is performed on the outside of the Kli. (See TOSFOS YOM TOV, CHOK NASAN, and KEREN ORAH.)

(b) The RAMBAM (in PERUSH HA'MISHNAYOS) writes that the difference between Merikah and Shetifah is that Merikah is a vigorous washing which is intended to scrape off any remaining fats from the surface of the Kli. Shetifah refers to a brisk washing and light rubbing. (See RADVAZ, Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:12, who expounds on the words of the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos.) According to the Rambam, this seems to be the opinion of both Rebbi and the Rabanan, except that the Rabanan require hot water for Merikah, the vigorous rubbing, while Rebbi maintains that cold water suffices.

According to this, what does the Mishnah mean when it says that Merikah is like the Merikah of a cup, and Shetifah is like the Shetifah of a cup? Where do we find that such actions are performed on a cup? The Rambam (in Perush ha'Mishnayos) explains that the Mishnah means that it is not necessary to rub the cup so vigorously that one will remove any external trace of the item that was absorbed. Rather, it is sufficient to clean it like one normally cleans a cup. It seems like the Rambam understands that the "Kos" mentioned in the Mishnah is any cup that is used for drinking which is washed after use. When the Gemara says that this Halachah is derived from the change of terminology in the Torah, which calls one washing "Merikah" and the other washing "Shetifah," the Rambam seems to learn that had the verse said "u'Morak u'Morak," we would have thought that it means that we are to rub the Kli so vigorously that no trace of the Isur is left. Now that it says "u'Morak v'Shutaf," we learn that one may wash it as one normally washes a cup.

(c) The RAN in Pesachim (30b, DH Madichan) and Avodah Zarah (76a, DH Tanu Rabanan) cites the RA'AVAD who explains that when the Mishnah says that Merikah and Shetifah are like the washing done with a cup, it refers to a cup that became Asur. This is referring to a cup that was used for containing a cold liquid that was Asur. The Beraisa in Avodah Zarah (75b) teaches that when one purchases such cups from a Nochri, one is supposed to wash them (Madichan) before immersing them in a Mikvah. Merikah and Shetifah refer to this kind of washing, a washing done to remove the Isur. When the Beraisa says "Madichan," it means not only that one is supposed to vigorously rub it, but that afterwards one should pour water over it. The former action is what our Mishnah refers to as Merikah, and the latter is what our Mishnah refers to as Shetifah.

The Ra'avad writes that the difference between them is that Merikah is a more vigorous scrubbing, and Shetifah is simply washing off the cup (similar to the difference according to the Rambam).

It seems that according to the Ra'avad also, Rebbi and the Rabanan agree to the statement of our Mishnah that Merikah and Shetifah of Kelim used for Korbanos are performed in the same manner as the Merikah and Shetifah of a cup. Their argument is whether the Merikah is done in a manner similar to the Merikah of a cup that was used for cold liquids of Isur (for which the Merikah is done with cold water), or whether it is similar to the Merikah of a cup that was used for hot liquids (for which the Merikah is done with hot water). According to this explanation, after hot water is poured over a cup in order to remove the Isur that was absorbed in it, the cup is rinsed with cold water to complete the cleansing process.

TOSFOS in Avodah Zarah (76a, DH mi'Kan) mentions that, indeed, this was the common practice. After Hag'alah, boiling an Isur out of a Kli that was used with hot water, the practice was to dip the Kli in cold water immediately afterwards.

Tosfos here and in Avodah Zarah questions this opinion from our Gemara which states that a Kli in which Terumah was cooked does not require Merikah u'Shetifah, but it does require Hag'alah. The Gemara asks what is the difference between Merikah u'Shetifah and Hag'alah if Merikah is done with hot water. The Gemara answers that the difference is the extra Shetifah in cold water which is performed with Merikah u'Shetifah, but which is not done with Hag'alah. The Gemara implies that Hag'alah does *not* have a Shetifah associated with it.

Tosfos in Avodah Zarah answers that those opinions that require washing a Kli in cold water after Hag'alah learn the Gemara differently. They learn that the Gemara is saying that Terumah requires Hag'alah with only a single washing afterwards. Merikah u'Shetifah, though, involves a Hag'alah with *two* washings in cold water afterwards -- one washing is done with the Merikah as part of the normal Hag'alah process, and an additional Shetifah is done afterwards because the utensil is Kodesh. The ROSH in Avodah Zarah adds that this explanation is more consistent with the words of the Gemara than the simple understanding of the Gemara (that Chulin does not require Shetifah at all), since the Gemara writes that what distinguishes Kodshim from Chulin is the "extra Shetifah," and not merely the "Shetifah."