skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Rami bar Chama inquired, “If, when roasting a sin-offering, one suspended it in the airspace of an earthenware oven, does the oven require breaking or not? Was the Torah concerned about cooking and absorption, or even about cooking without absorption?” Can we find the answer in the above rule about broth? - No, we cannot! Broth is a case of absorption without cooking, and our question is about cooking without absorption.
And what is the reason for breaking? - Because the absorbed flavor becomes prohibited “remains” in the morning.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Eugene Murer at His Pastry Oven
Similar law applies to an earthenware utensil, except that if it becomes impure while outside, it cannot be broken – since breaking must be inside. Instead, one punctures a small hole in it, which makes it unusable and leads it to loose its impurity, then brings it into the Courtyard and breaks it there.
Resh Lakish asked a question – What happens if the robe of the High Priest was spattered with blood, taken outside the Courtyard, and there it became impure. The advice above cannot be applied, because it is forbidden to tear this robe. It needs to be brought inside and laundered there, but it is forbidden to do so, because it is impure. One is also not allowed to dip it in a mikva to remove its impurity – because that would be the beginning of washing, and washing can only be done inside the Courtyard. Readers are invited to submit their solutions.
Art: Lovis (Franz Heinrich Louis) Corinth - In a Silk Robe
If the blood of a sin-offering spattered on a hide, then if the hide was not yet stripped from the animal, it does not require washing (because it cannot be a garment yet), but if it was stripped from the animal, then it does require washing (because the skin can be designated for use as a mat by the owner in his mind) – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. However, Rabbi Elazar says that until it becomes a garment, and is not merely designated for use, it cannot accept ritual impurity and thus does not require washing.
Only the place of the blood requires laundering, and it must be done in the Courtyard. So too must the earthenware be shattered in the Courtyard. Thus laundering is a stringency possessed by the sin-offering over other most holy offerings.
Art: Edward Stott - The Washing Day
Rabbi Yehudah the Prince answered, “Great question! But I will answer either way: if the blood is still valid, the garment needs laundering, and if it is invalid, then I follow Rabbi Akiva to say that since it was valid at some time, it still makes the garment liable to laundering.” However, in truth the law is not like Rabbi Akiva, and thus Levi's inquiry remains unresolved.
If the blood spattered directly from the neck onto the garment, it does not require laundering. Similarly, if it spattered from the horn of the Altar, from its base, or if it spilled on the floor and was gathered up, the garment does not require laundering. It only requires laundering when the blood was received in a sacred vessel first, and then spattered on a garment.
Art: Jan Mari Henri Ten Kate - Hanging Up the Washing
Thus, the rule is that if blood of a sin offering is spattered on a garment, this garment requires laundering in the Courtyard. Even though the Torah, in giving this law, spoke only about sacrifices that are eaten, the law is equally applicable to other sin-offerings, which are not eaten, but are brought in the Holy of Holies instead. Nevertheless, the stringency of laundering in the Courtard only applies to valid blood, but if the sacrifice was invalidated, laundering can be done elsewhere, whether the offering had a period of time when it was valid, or if it was never valid.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Woman Hanging up the Washing
Said Rabbi Shimon, “If you see Kohanim who are distributing oil in the Temple Courtyard, you don't have to ask what it is. It is either the remainder of a wafer flour-offering of a regular Jew, or the remainder of the oil of a metzora, a spiritual leper. (Only Rabbi Shimon thinks so, but the Sages say that the oil was smeared on the wafer until none remained.)
Rabbi Shimon continued, “If you see oil being poured upon the fires of the Altar, again you don't have to ask what it is; it is either the remainder of a wafer flour-offering of the Kohanim (for their flour offerings was completely burned), or it is the remainder of the daily flour offering of the Anointed Kohen. Rabbi Shimon's opinion is that one is not allowed to donate oil as an offering. However, Rabbi Tarfon says that one may donate oil.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Dr Ephraim Bueno, Jewish Physician and Writer
More special actions precede the less specials ones; thus, even though normally a sin-offering comes before a guilt-offering, a guilt-offering of a metzora (spiritual leper) comes before his sin-offering, because it prepares him for further purification. Just as they precede in offering, so they precede in consumption.
If we have a peace offering from yesterday and a sin-offering from today, then the peace offering should be eaten first, because it would an expression of disdain to allow yesterday's offerings to spoil – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages maintain that the regular rule of “more sacred comes first” still applies even here.
For consumption, the Kohanim are allowed to cook the offerings in any way they like, to roast, boil, or fry them, and to add any spices.
Which comes first, more frequent or more sacred? Let's prove it from the additional Shabbat offering itself: it is more sacred, and nevertheless the more frequent daily offerings comes before it! - No, that is no proof, because on Shabbat the daily offering is also more special. After making five more attempts to find a proof, the Talmud leaves this unresolved.
Jean Baptiste Simeon Chardin - A "Lean Diet" with Cooking Utensils
