Avodah Zarah, Daf Ayin Vav, Part 3

 

Introduction

Today s sugya continues to try to resolve the contradiction between the mishnah that required making Gentile vessels white hot in order to kasher them and the mishnah that said that vessels used with sacrifices could be kashered by boiling. Abaye said that each mishnah provides part of the information and that each method of kashering was valid in either case. In today s sugya, Rava offers his dissent and then tries to resolve the difficulty in a different way.

 

א"ל רבא אי הכי לתנינהו לכולהו בחדא וליתני חדא באידך אחריתי ולימא יגיד עליו רעו

 

Rava answered him: If so, let him teach both in one passage and one of them in the other, and then it would be possible to say, Let his fellow testify about him !

 

Rava says that if we thought each mishnah testifies about the other, then two forms of kashering should have appeared in one context and one in the other. This would make it clearer that both are always valid. But one form in each context gives the impression of a difference between them.

 

אלא אמר רבא קדשים היינו טעמייהו כדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דאמר כל יום ויום נעשה גיעול לחבירו

 

Rather Rava said [in the case of] sacrifices [the cleansing of the vessels by means of scalding] follows the reasoning given by R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha who said: Every day scalding was carried out with respect to the preceding day’s [offerings].

 

Rava explains that with holy vessels there is actually never a case where the taste would sit in the vessel for two days and thereby become remnant which is prohibited. If, for instance, a sacrifice is boiled in a vessel on Sunday, it does not become prohibited till Tuesday. But if the vessel is used on Monday, then it removes the taste of Sunday s sacrifice. And thus there is never any time in which the taste becomes prohibited.

 

תינח שלמים דכיון דלשני ימים מיתאכלי מקמי דניהוי נותר קא הוי גיעול אלא חטאת כיון דליום ולילה מיתאכלא כי מבשל בה האידנא חטאת הוי נותר כי הדר מבשל בה למחר או שלמים או חטאת קא פליט נותר דחטאת דהאידנא בחטאת ושלמים דלמחר

 

This makes sense with regard to a shelamim which could be eaten on the second day [after the sacrifice]; in this case the process of scalding would be performed before [the traces of the offering] became remannt.

With a sin-offering, however, since it must be eaten the same day [as sacrificed] and the following night, when he cooks a sin-offering today, there would be remnant; so if he further cooked in it tomorrow either a shelamim or sin-offering, then what was remnant of today’s sin-offering would be expelled into the sin-offering or shelamim of the next day!

 

Rava s resolution above works well if we re only concerned about shelamim, which can be eaten for two days. But a sin-offering (a hatat) can only be eaten for one day. So the taste of yesterday s sin-offering is already prohibited when the vessel is used to cook today, making it prohibited.

 

אמרי לא צריכא דכי מבשל בה חטאת האידנא הדר מבשל בה האידנא שלמים דחטאת דלמחר ושלמים דאתמול בהדי הדדי קא שלים זמנייהו והדר מבשל שלמים דלמחר

 

I can say: It is not necessary [to kasher the vessel by making it white hot in the situation], where he cooks today a sin-offering, then he again cooks today a shelamim, so that the time-limit of tomorrow’s sin-offering and the shelamin of the preceding day will expire simultaneously; and then he may cook in it tomorrow’s shelamim!

 

The Talmud explains that it is not necessary to kasher the vessel by making it white hot in the following circumstance. He cooks hatat today and then, on the same day, he also cooks a shelamim. This will get rid of the taste of the hatat. He then can cook in it hatat tomorrow, and then the taste of that hatat and yesterday s shelamim will become remnant at the same time, the next day. Then he again cooks in it shelamim on that same day, thereby purging it of the taste of that day s hatat. As long as one keeps repeating this process, kashering will not be necessary.