Cleaning Out Holy Vessels

Rashi (6:21) explains that the obligation to break a earthenware vessel that absorbed the taste of kodshim doesn’t only apply to the scenario of the verse, a chatas, but applies to all kodshim.  This is the opinion of the Raavad as well in Maaseh Korbanot (8:14.)  Therefore, Rashi understands the Mishna in Zevachim  (11:4) that says there is a stringency of chatos over other offerings refers to the law of washing out a blood stain.  The Rambam disagrees and holds the law of breaking an earthenware vessel applies only to a chatas but by other kodshim it suffices to wash out the vessel.  However, this is very difficult for it is the same verse that tells us the law that a copper vessel that absorbed the taste of kodshim must be washed out as the law of breaking an earthenware vessel.  So how could the Rambam rule that the law of washing the copper vessel applies to all kodshim (as the Gemorah 96b says,) but the law of breaking an earthenware vessel only applies to a chatas?  How can the possuk be split that way? 

The simple understanding of the requirement to wash out the vessel is to remove the taste absorbed in the vessel, to כשר  it (see Gemorah (97a.)  However, we also find the Gemorah (94b) derives that washing must be done in a מקום קדוש (Rashi (93b) explains that means the עזרה, in regard to לשכות built in חול ופתוחות לקודש see Chizkuni (6:20) and Meshech Chachma.)  If it is a mere act of koshering the vessel, why must it be done in a holy place?  We see that it is just a mere act of koshering but there is an aspect of a mitzvah to it as well.  [The two aspects are derived from the obligation to wash it in a the עזרה but yet one must wait until the taste becomes נותר.]  The Rambam understands that it is the aspect of mitzva that is said only in regard to the chatas (see law 11 and 14 ibid that only in regard to the chatas must the washing be done in the עזרה.)  The breaking of the earthenware vessel doesn’t remove the issur on it as we see there was a miracle that it sank into the ground (Yoma 21a.)  That means the possuk only requires the breaking because of the aspect of mitzvah and that is only required by chatas.  Hence, the verse is consistent according to the Rambam, it is telling us the obligation of the mitavah to remove absorptions of taste and that only applies to the chatas (Rav Dovid Solevetchik in the name of Rav Chaim.)

The problem is that the Gemorah in Pesachim 30b derives from the obligation to break the vessel that a earthenware vessel has no possibility of הכשר.  According to the Rambam there are two problems. 1. We see that there is הכשר  because washing out works for taste absorptions that aren’t from a chatas?  2. How can learn from here if it merely a mitzvah?  Rav Chaim explained that the Rambam understands that there is washing out works to remove most of the absorptions in the earthenware vessel to the degree that it will not give any significant taste.  However, it doesn’t extract it entirely.  Therefore, it is the Torah gives a mitzvah by the absorption from a chatas that even that slight amount forbids the vessel from usage and it must be broken.  [This idea is in Ramban Pesachim 30b, Shaar Hamelech laws of Chametz 5:25.]  However, by other kodshim it suffices to wash it out.  How can the Gemorah derive that even in regard to chullin there is no way of koshering the vessel?  The Gemorah only says it in regard to יין נסך וחמץ בפסח where there is no bittul and even a miniscule taste left will cause an issur.

Rashi (95b) understands that the washing out of the vessel functions as a means of הגעלה.  The Meiri in Pesachim 30b brings such a view as well.  The Ridvaz points out that the Rambam disagrees and holds it is just an obligation to wash out the vessel, not to do an act of הכשר.  Why doesn’t the Rambam require hagalah?  The Riddav explains that it is נותן טעם לפגם and therefore there isn’t any reason that there should be a requirement to kasher the vessel.  So why does the Rambam require spits, grills and other objects used on the fire to get hagalah?  He explains since it is used on the fire it has a greater absorption and requires hagalah.  It comes out according to the Rambam that the washing out isn’t a normal act of hecsher but is a special law over here by kodshim (see Briskor Rav and Netziv on Shieltos 137.)  Based upon this we understand that why the Rambam holds even if one washes out the vessel before its נותר rather once the time one has to eat the korban has ended there also is a requirement to wash out the vessel.  Why it isn’t נותר  yet, there is no issur yet?  Because according to the Rambam the din isn’t to remove the נותר, it’s an independent law the Torah prescribes.

Other Rishonim hold that there must be an act of hagala to kasher the vessel and are bothered why is it a problem, it should be נותן טעם לפגם before it becomes נותר so why must it be koshered?  See Rosh Avodah Zarah Ch. 5 #36, Ran (76a), Mizrachi etc.  It is noteworthy that the Chavvas Daas (93:2) proves that the koshering isn’t to avoid the vessel being forbidden for one must wash it out even if its not used for cooking, rather the Torah wants the נותר  itself to be removed