Commentary for Numbers 31:23

כל דבר אשר יבא באש ANYTHING THAT COMES ON THE FIRE, to boil something in it,

EVERY THING THAT MAY COME INTO THE FIRE YE SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE AND IT SHALL BE CLEAN. A vessel which touched a human corpse or dead animal does not become purified by fire, since the immersion mentioned in the Torah is always in water. Therefore our Rabbis had to explain⁹⁷Abodah Zarah 75b. that this purification [mentioned here by Scripture] refers to remove from them [the traces of] the forbidden foods which they had absorbed whilst they were in the possession of the non-Jews. This is the true [explanation] without any doubt.

וטהר, it will have become decontaminated from the negative vibes attached to it as residue of idolaters.

אך במי נדה, a reference to the waters containing the ash of the red heifer that would be used to cleanse them from their ritual impurity. It would also be used to purify other items, such as remnants of forbidden foods absorbed by the walls of the captured pots and pans.

תעבירו באש וטהר, “you shall pass through the fire and it will become ritually pure.” Nachmanides writes that no vessel that had been in direct contact with a dead body, or an animal’s carcass, would become purified simply by passing through fire, as the Torah recognizes only immersion in a ritual bath as the way in which such vessels can become purified. As a result, we must understand what is written here concerning making the vessel red hot, i.e. “passing through fire” as referring only to purification from the type of impurity caused by the pores of the vessels in question having absorbed some of the forbidden food that had been cooked or fried in it.

כל דבר אשר יבא באש תעבירו באש, “any item which is normally used on (in) the fire you shall make pass through the fire.” The purification process must match the manner in which it is normally used. Iron spits used for roasting meat for instance, would have to be made red hot in fire in order to be ritually purified.

In which to cook something. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Just because the artisan made a utensil in fire, would the Torah require one to pass it through fire again? Thus, he explains “in which to cook” and this is an abbreviated verse, for it should have said, “Anything placed on a fire in which to cook [forbidden food].”

V. 23. כל דבר וגו׳, alles, was durch Feuer hineingekommen ist, habt ihr durch Feuer fortzuschaffen, und alles, das nicht durch Feuer hineingekommen ist, habt ihr durch Wasser fortzuschaffen. תעבירי wie העביר חטאתך (Sam. 1I. 12, 13), העבר חרפתי (Ps. 119, 39). ויעבר הקדשים מן הארץ (Kön. I. 15, 12). Es ist damit das Gesetz gegeben, dass metallene Speisegeräte, in welche איסור-Stoffe eingedrungen sind, vor dem Gebrauch von diesen איסור-Stoffen befreit werden müssen, und zwar was unmittelbar durch Feuer, ohne flüssiges Medium eingedrungen ist, muss durch Glühen (ליבון) im Feuer, was nicht unmittelbar durch Feuer eingedrungen ist, durch kochendes Wasser (הגעלה) herausgebracht werden. Dieser Grundsatz, dass ein eingedrungener Stoff durch dasselbe Medium hinausgebracht wird, durch welches er eingedrungen war, wird unter den Kanon: כבולעו כך פולטו gefasst (siehe Aboda Sara 55b f.). Diese gesetzliche Tatsache: גיעולי נכרים — die aus nichtjüdischen Speisegeräten wieder herauskommenden Issurstoffe, געל: von sich auswerfen (Job 21, 10 und Wajikra 26, 11) — dass also selbst in Gefäße eingedrungene Issurstoffe oßur bleiben, obgleich sie doch jedenfalls selbst für den Geschmacksinn bereits in geschmackwidriger Weise abgeschwächt sind, אי אפשר לקדרה בת יומא דלא פגמה פורתא (Aboda Sara 67b, תוספו׳ daselbst) setzt die bereits auch anderweitig feststehende Tatsache voraus (siehe Kap. 5, 3), dass טעם בעיקר, dass ein für alle anderen Sinne verschwundener und nur noch dem Geschmacksinne erkennbarer Issur noch oßur bleibe.

כל דבר אשר יבא באש, “any vessel that can withstand fire, etc.;” it seems strange that the Israelites had not yet been commanded concerning the need to ritually cleanse vessels that were part of a war’s booty already after they had conquered the land of Sichon and Og, lands which they had taken physical possession of, and which was considered as part of the Holy Land, its soil having been promised to the descendants of Avraham in chapter 15 of Genesis? Perhaps the reason is that those campaigns were fought in open fields, and the soldiers at the time of killing their adversaries did not need to enter the homes of their victims and come into physical contact with all their victims’ personal belongings. Now they had to be taught that such belongings of idolaters had to be treated as out of bounds until their idolatrous character had been removed from them.

,וטהר, אך במי נדה יתחטא. “it will become pure, but must still be purified further with the water of sprinkling, called: mey niddah. Rabba bar Avuhi in the Talmud tractate Avodah Zarah folio 75, states that the language of the Torah does not only refer to used utensils, if they had not been used for 12 months, but even for new vessels not produced by Jews if these are meant to be used in the consumption of food or preparation of food. The manner of purifying same is less demanding than the purification of human beings who had been in contact with dead bodies or body parts. When Rabbi Yirmiyah heard of the statement of Rabbi Rabbah, he added that his rule applies only to vessels that have been acquired (purchased or looted) and had been handled by Israelites. If they had only been borrowed temporarily they do not require such purification. Vessels that are made of earthenware cannot be purified unless first broken up when they can be reconstituted by having the shards put in a kiln after treatment by the artisan. Mar bar rav Ashi, is on record as telling people that his father was in the habit of using vessels made from silver that he had received from gentiles as security of loans extended to them. He drank from these vessels (after immersing them in a ritual bath only without submitting them to further purification first). His son was not sure if he did so because he considered them as on loan to him. Or, these vessels were not used to contain matters which had been heated first, such as soup, etc, in which case they would have required a higher degree of purification. (boiling water being poured over them, or if they were small enough, immersing them in boiling water. According to Rashi, Mar bar Rav Ashi’s father was convinced that the borrower who had left this silver vessel with him as security would never demand it back and repay the loan, so that he considered it as his, else he would not have been allowed it as it was given to him for safekeeping. In effect, he had bought it and his payment had been the money he “loaned” to the previous owner.

תעבירו באש YE SHALL PASS THROUGH THE FIRE — according to the manner in which it is used so is the manner in which it is cleansed from what has been absorbed: that vessel the use of which is by means of hot water he shall cleanse with hot water, and that which is used for roasted meat, as for instance, a spit and a grill, he shall make it white hot in the flame (Avodah Zarah 75b).

AND ALL THAT COMETH NOT INTO THE FIRE — “anything which is not [normally] used on fire, such as cups, flasks, and pitchers which are used [to contain] cold substances, and [therefore] have not absorbed [any of the traces of forbidden foods] ye shall pass through the water, meaning that it is sufficient to immerse them.” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct, for the term ta’aviru (ye shall pass through) does not refer to immersion; for [had this been the case], it would have said “tavi’u (ye shall put it) into water,” which is the expression used in connection with immersion, just as it says, it ‘yuva’ (must be put into) water, and it shall be unclean until the even, and then it shall be clean.⁹⁸Leviticus 11:32. Furthermore, even those vessels, which are only used for cold things [of forbidden foods] need purification from [the traces of] their forbidden foods in addition to this immersion [which Rashi mentioned], and how can it be that Scripture [here] does not mention the [method] of purification [for such vessels] as it did with reference to those vessels that come into the fire? And when the Sages deduced [the necessity for] this immersion they did not mention that the source for it was this [part of the] verse [quoted here by Rashi], but interpreted it⁹⁷Abodah Zarah 75b. [on the basis of that part of the verse which says]: “Nevertheless it shall be purified with the waters of ‘niddah’⁹⁹Here in Verse 23. — waters which are fit for a niddah (a menstruant woman) to immerse herself in.”
But the meaning of ye shall pass through the water is that you should wash them and rub them thoroughly in water until you remove the deposit of forbidden foods which has formed on the vessels by being used for such foods, and this [process] constitutes their purification from the forbidden foods. Scripture is thus saying that [in order to purify a vessel from the forbidden food which it has absorbed] you must put into fire those [vessels] which are used on the fire, in exactly the same way that they were used for [cooking] the forbidden foods. Hence if it was used on the flame itself — such as [a vessel of] iron or copper, and also silver or gold — he must make it white-hot in a flame, and if it was used to contain hot substances, such as [a vessel made of] tin or lead, he cleanses it with boiling-hot water; and if it was not used on fire [or for hot substances] but only for cold foodstuffs, he scours it with water until it is properly cleansed, and then it becomes pure. And similarly the Sages said:⁹⁷Abodah Zarah 75b. “He scours them, and immerses them, and they are then pure.” In the language of the Sifre:¹⁰⁰Sifre, Matoth 158. This language shows that the “passing through water” referred to here, means cleansing of the food deposits, and not, as Rashi explained, merely immersion. “Ye shall pass through the fire — such as knives, because they are [used as spits and] burned by the non-Jews. And all that cometh not into the fire, such as cups, ye shall pass through the water in order to remove the deposits of [the food of] the non-Jews.” And Scripture did not need to mention again [at this second part of the verse, i.e., and all that cometh ‘not’ into the fire], the necessity of immersion [in a ritual pool, which is required after cleansing the vessel before it can be used], because He had already mentioned [in the first part of the verse, concerning vessels that are used in the fire, stating]: nevertheless it shall be purified with the waters of ‘niddah’ [meaning, as explained above, “waters which are fit for ‘a menstruant’ woman to immerse herself in”], and [it is self-understood that] after the traces of forbidden foods have been removed from the vessels they are all alike with respect to the law [requiring] immersion [whether they were used in the fire or not].
And I further take into consideration¹⁰¹Literally: “And my heart further thinks” on this matter to say etc. — See Rambam in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Ma’achaloth Assuroth 17:5, who is also of the opinion that the requirement of immersion of vessels is an ordinance of the Rabbis. See also Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deiah Chapter 120, for the application of this law nowadays. that this immersion [of all vessels obtained from non-Jews, after they have been cleansed from the traces and absorption of forbidden foods prepared in them], is a law of the Rabbis, and they quoted the verse merely as a Scriptural support [for the Rabbinic ordinance]. And similarly Onkelos translated [the phrase, the waters of ‘niddah’] as meaning “the purification of ‘sprinkling’ of [the water containing] the ashes of the [Red] Heifer” [which was required in order to purify those who had come into contact with a dead body, and thus it does not refer at all to the requirement of immersion. The Rabbis [according to this explanation] only required immersion of metal vessels, because some of them are used on fire, either as a “first vessel” [used directly on the flame], or as a “second vessel” [i.e., those which are not actually used for cooking but into which a boiling substance has been put or poured], and [some metal vessels are used] for cold foodstuffs. But this matter needs further investigation.
Now He warned them here to remove from the vessels of the Midianites the [traces and absorptions of the] forbidden foods [which they had absorbed when they were in the possession] of the non-Jews, but He did not tell them this [law] at the beginning — in connection with the vessels of [the Amorite peoples ruled by] Sihon and Og which they also took as spoil, as it is said, Only the cattle we took for a prey unto ourselves, with the spoil of the cities which we had taken.¹⁰²Deuteronomy 2:35. The reason for this is that Sihon and Og were Amorite kings, and their land was part of Israel’s inheritance, and therefore all spoil taken from them was allowed for the Israelites, including foods [usually] forbidden; for it is written, and houses full of all good things, which thou didst not fill,¹⁰³Ibid., 6:11. and our Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁴Chullin 17a. “kadlei¹⁰⁵The hind part of the head, together with the neck. In our Gemara ibid., the reading is “katlei of swine,” which Rashi interprets as “dried swine.” See also Ramban on Deuteronomy 6:10. of swine was [hereby especially] permitted for them.” But Midian was not part of their [inheritance], and they [the Israelites] did not capture their land from them; it was only to execute vengeance on them [as they were commanded to do as a punishment for causing the Israelites to sin] that they killed them and took their spoil, and therefore the [usual] prohibition of using their vessels [without removing from them the traces and absorptions of the forbidden foods] applied. Similarly, He [only] commanded them [now] about the law of impurity [conveyed by the dead, saying], And abide ye without the camp seven days etc.¹⁰⁶Above, Verse 19. [and did not command them about it in the earlier war against Sihon and Og], because in the war against Sihon and Og all Israel participated, and when the [entire] public is involved, impurity is permitted,¹⁰⁷This principle refers primarily to the Divine Service in the Sanctuary, and the gist of it is that if all the priests and people became defiled, the public offerings may nonetheless be brought in this state of impurity, because “impurity is permitted when the [entire] public is involved.” Ramban’s application of this principle to the problem before us [namely why the people were not commanded in the wars against Sihon and Og that all who had come into contact with the dead must abide without the camp for seven days], has engendered much discussion among later scholars. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 328. [whereas, as explained above in Verse 6, only a select few, and not the whole people, were sent to execute vengeance on Midian.] But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, He warned them [the twelve thousand men who fought against Midian], “And abide ye without the camp seven days¹⁰⁶Above, Verse 19. and purify yourselves,” in order that they should not defile [the rest of] the people, but there [in the case of the wars against Sihon and Og] they were all equally impure [since they all went to fight; hence there was no point commanding them to abide without the camp, since they all required purification anyhow].

אך במי נדה יתחטא, even making it red hot does not automatically remove its impurity, even if it looks as if new. It requires the waters and ash of the red heifer, i.e. מי נדה

וכל אשר לא יבא באש תעבירו במים, “and everything that during its normal use would not directly be exposed to fire, you shall pass through water.” Rashi writes that this refers to immersion in a ritual bath. The reason that this is sufficient is that the forbidden particles of food that concern us had not been absorbed at all by the walls of the vessel in question. Nachmanides questions this point, as in his opinion the term מעביר, “making something pass through,” is not associated with a ritual bath at all. When the Torah speaks about a ritual bath, the term used is ובא במים וטהר, “when it is immersed in water it will be purified.” Furthermore, even vessels that are used only cold require to be purified from their contamination by something in addition to a ritual bath. Besides, the requirement of immersing oneself in a ritual bath, is derived by our sages from a different verse, אך במי נדה יתחטא, “however, it must be purified with the water of sprinkling.” We must therefore understand the words תעבירו במים to mean that the vessels under discussion must be thoroughly cleaned in water, rubbed, scrubbed, etc., to remove residual forbidden particles. This is the appropriate process of cleansing, parallel to making vessels used on the fire red-hot, so that the residual forbidden particles are destroyed. This is parallel to the manner in which we clean different categories of utensils before Passover to ensure that no vestige of chametz still is attached to them. Those that are normally used on the fire have to undergo a cleansing process at least equal to their normal usage, whereas those that are not used on the fire have to undergo brief immersion in boiling water or if they are too big must have boiling water poured over them. Once the vessels that had served idolaters have undergone the preparatory steps described, they are all equal in that they still require immersion in a ritual bath.

אך במי נדה יתחטא, “but also it has to be purified by the water of the sprinkling.” In this instance all these captured items, regardless of the manner of their use had to undergo this procedure of being sprinkled with water and ash from the red cow as the Torah writes in Numbers 19,13 that if this water and ash had not been sprinkled on such person or item they remain impure. From the combination of these verses we derive the requirement that even new utensils, unless manufactured by Jews, have to undergo ritual immersion before being fit to use as food or in connection with food (Avodah Zarah 75). The extra word וטהר in our verse is the allusion to this requirement.

To cleanse it from the contamination of the dead. Thus the word נדה ["sprinkling"] is in the sense of וידו אבן בי ["threw a stone at me"] (Eichah 3:53). However, according to the extrapolative interpretation [מי נדה] is in the sense of נדת דותה ["niddah flow"] (Vayikra 12:2), meaning water suitable for the immersion of the niddah. And because the word יתחטא ["be purified"] is only appropriate for החטוי ["purification"], Rashi termed the first explanation “the plain interpretation.” Furthermore, because “water suitable for the immersion of the niddah” refers to forty se'ah, and this is suitable for any impurity, it should have said במי טמא יתחטא [lit. "be purified with water [suitable for immersion of] the impure"]. Therefore, Rashi says, “The Rabbis extrapolate here…” [rather than considering its plain interpretation].

אך במי נדה יתחטא kann nach der ganzen Konstruktion dieser Sätze nicht die היזה von טמאת מת bedeuten. Wäre dies, es würde sicher nach וכל אשר לא וגו׳ stehen, da alle Geräte, auch diejenigen, die gar nicht in Feuer kommen, z. B. hölzerne Geräte, doch, wie ja bereits V. 20 ausgesprochen, הזיה fordern. Offenbar ordnet אך במי נדה וגו׳ etwas an, was nur für metallene Speisegeräte zur Anwendung kommen soll. כל דבר usw. V. 23 ist Zusammenfassung der V. 22 aufgerechneten Metallstoffe; von ihnen wird ein Zwiefaches ausgesagt: ist von ihnen vorauszusetzen, dass sie unmittelbar in Feuer gebraucht worden, so ist der eingedrungene Issurstoff auch durch Feuer wieder hinauszuschaffen, und ferner sollen sie, diese metallenen Speisegeräte, vor dem Gebrauch auch וכל אשר לא יבא באש .במי נדה יתחטא, Nichtmetallgeräte, die nicht in Feuer kommen, sind von den in sie eingedrungenen Issurstoffen nur durch Wasser frei zu machen und bedürfen außerdem nicht des für Metallgeräte vorgeschriebenen חטוי במי נדה. Die Halacha lehrt (Aboda Sara 75b), dass unter diesem חטוי eine besondere טבילה und zwar במקוה ארבעים סאה (siehe Wajikra 11, 36) und במים שהנדה genügt רביעית schon ein טבילת כלים מטומאתן zu verstehen sei, während für טובלת בהן (siehe תוספו׳ daselbst). מי נדה wäre dann hier allgemeine Bezeichnung der מקוה für durch טומאה zum "Sichfernhalten" verpflichtete Menschen. So Secharja 13, 1. מקור וגו׳ לחטאת ולנדה wo durch חטאת die הזיה bei טומאת מת und durch נדה die allgemeine טבילה bezeichnet wird. Dadurch, dass hier für metallene Speisegeräte eine טבילה wie für Menschen angeordnet ist, erklärt sich dann auch der sonst so auffallende Ausdruck יתחטא wo das zu entsündigende Gerät nicht Objekt, sondern Subjekt ist. Es wird also das כלי als Person als "sich entsündigender" Mensch ausgedrückt, die טבילת כלי damit als טבילת אדם begriffen, es ist die jüdische Menschenpersönlichkeit, die in dieser טבילת כלי מדין ihre טבילה zu erblicken hat, daher יתחטא und daher ארבעים סאה (siehe auch Wajikra 11, 32).

אך מי נדה יתחטא NEVERTHELESS IT SHALL BE PURIFIED WITH THE WATERS OF SPRINKLING — According to its plain sense this purification is to cleanse it from the uncleanness caused by a corpse. He said to them: the vessels require גיעול (the ceremony by which whatever has been absorbed will be given up) to cleanse them from the effect of having contained forbidden food, and also purification to cleanse them from the uncleanness caused by a corpse. But our Rabbis derived from here the law that in order to make them fit for use (to cleanse them entirely) from being forbidden, it (Scripture) made immersion in a ritual bath a requirement for metal vessels, and they explained the words מי נדה which are written here as denoting “waters that are proper for a נדה to immerse herself in”. And how much is that? Forty Seahs (Avodah Zarah 75b).

Immerse them and it is sufficient. [One might ask:] Why did the Torah refer to immersion using the term of “passing” instead of “bringing” as in “it shall be brought into water and remain contaminated until evening” (Vayikra 11:32)? The answer is that since it said above, “You must pass through fire,” which does not mean that it was passed through fire, rather it was brought on the fire, the same is true for “passing” here, that it too is in the sense of being brought, and refers to immersion. Now that immersion is required, one must remove any substance that adhered to the utensil, so that there will not be any interposition during immersion as it is written, “Only the gold…” (v. 22).

Diese für metallene Speisegeräte bei ihrem Übergang aus nichtjüdischem in jüdischen Besitz angeordnete טבילה, selbst wenn dieselben von jeder טומאה und jedem איסור frei sind, kann nur der קדושה, der sittlichen Heiligung angehören, in deren Bereich dem Juden auch sein sinnlicher Speisegenuss gehoben sein soll. Die Beschränkung auf "metallene Speisegeräte" dürfte aber dem durch diese טבילה zum Bewusstsein zu bringenden Gedanken noch einen besonderen Gehalt erteilen. Ein metallenes Gerät ist der sprechendste Ausdruck der geistigen Herrschaft des Menschen über die Erde und ihre Stoffe. Nicht nur seine Form, schon sein Stoff verkündet sie. Speise ist aber gerade diejenige Tätigkeit, die zunächst ganz im Dienste der physisch-sinnlichen Natur des Menschen steht, und ein metallenes Gerät zum Speisezweck vergegenwärtigt an sich die geistigste Seite des Menschenwesens im Dienste seiner sinnlichen Natur. Unter dem Regime des göttlichen Gesetzes ist aber auch das ganze sinnliche Leben des Menschen dem Kreise physischer Unfreiheit enthoben und dem Bereiche sittlich freier Gott dienender Tätigkeit überwiesen, und begreift sichs, wie uns scheint, diesem nach sehr wohl, warum das Gesetz insbesondere für den Eintritt metallener Speisegeräte die Entsündigungsweihe durch טבילה statuiert, und warum eben diese טבילה auch התחטא "Sichentsündigen" heißt; soll doch eben auch sie das Bewusstsein sittlicher Freiheit, das ist ja der Fähigkeit, sich der Sünde zu enthalten, beleben und stärken. So auch ירושלמי Aboda Sara V. 15. לפי שיצאו מטומאת הנכרי ונכנסו לקדושת ישראל. Gläserne Gefäße haben ihrem ebenfalls durch künstliche Feuerbeherrschung geschaffenen und wie Metalle schmelzbaren Stoffe nach, Ähnlichkeit mit Metallen und fordern daher gläserne und glasierte Speisegeräte טבילה מדרבנן (Aboda Sara daselbst).