Halakhah su Levitico 7:76

You should know that that which they said (Makkot 23b), "613 commandments were stated to Moshe at Sinai," indicates that this is the number of the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. For commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations do not have a connection to Sinai - whether they were stated at Sinai or elsewhere. However their intention in saying, "at Sinai," was that the main giving of the Torah was at Sinai. And that was His, may He be elevated, saying, "Come up to Me on the mountain and be there, and I will give [it] to you" (Exodus 24:12). And in explanation, they said, "What is the verse [that alludes to this]? 'Moshe commanded us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov' (Deuteronomy 33:4)" - meaning to say - "the numerical value of [the word,] Torah is 611. In addition, 'I am the Lord your God' and 'You shall have no other gods' (Exodus 20:2, 3), that we heard from the mouth of the Almighty." And with them, the total of the commandments is 613. They wanted to say with this indication that the thing that Moshe commanded us - and that we did not hear from anyone but him - was the number of 611 commandments. And he called it, "an inheritance of the congregation of Yaakov." And a commandment that is not practiced for [all] the generations is not an inheritance for us. For it is indeed only that which will be continuous for the generations - as it is stated (Deuteronomy 11:21), "like the days of the heavens upon the earth" - that will be called an inheritance for us. And likewise, their statement (Tanchuma, Ki Tetzeh), that it is as if each and every limb commands a person to do a commandment; and it is as if each and every day is warning a person from sin. This is a proof that the number will never be lacking. But if commandments that are not practiced for [all] generations were included in the count of the commandments, behold that the number would be lacking once the obligation of such a commandment ceased. And then this statement would only be correct for a limited time. However someone besides us already erred in this principle as well and counted - because he was forced by a need - "But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary" (Numbers 4:20); and "he shall serve no more" (Numbers 8:25), concerning the Levites. Yet these were also only practiced in the wilderness. And even though they said (Sanhedrin 81b:18), "From where is there a hint about one who steals a jar for the Temple service (that he is killed)? 'But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the sanctuary'" - there is enough [clarification here] in their saying, "a hint." But the simple understanding of the verse is not like this; and it is not even included in those liable for the death penalty at the hands of the Heavens - as is explained in the Tosefta (Tosefta Keritot 1) and in Sanhedrin (Sanhedrin 83a). And I am wondering about this, why they mentioned these negative commandments. Why did they not [also] count about the manna, "Let no one leave any of it over until morning" (Exodus 16:19); or that which He, may He blessed said, "Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war" (Deuteronomy 2:9), and likewise the prohibition that came about the the Children of Ammon, "do not harass them or start a fight with them" (Deuteronomy 2:19). And likewise should he count among the positive commandments, "Make a seraph figure and mount it on a standard" (Numbers 21:8); and its saying, "Take a jar and put one omer of manna in it" (Exodus 16:33) - like he counted the tithe of the [booty] (Numbers 31) and the dedication of the altar (Numbers 7). And he should have also counted, "Be ready for the third day" (Exodus 19:15); "neither shall the flocks and the herds graze" (Exodus 34:3); "they shall not destroy, to come up" (Exodus 19:24); and many like these. And no intelligent person will doubt that all of these commandments were given to Moshe at Sinai as commands and [prohibitions; however they were all temporary and not practiced for [all] generations. And therefore they were not counted. And because of this principle, it is inappropriate to count the blessings and the curses that they were commanded at Gerizim and Eval; nor to count the building of the altar that we were commanded to build when we entered the Land of Canaan - for all of these were temporary commandments. And likewise, not the command that we were commanded to sacrifice any animal, from which we want to eat, as peace-offerings - as this was only a temporary command. And that was its saying, "and you shall bring them to the Lord" (Leviticus 7:8)." And they said in Sifrei, Achrei Mot, "'And you shall bring them' is a positive commandment" - but it was only so in the wilderness. For the dispensation to eat meat for pleasure is explained in [Deuteronomy]; and that is its saying, "you may eat meat whenever you wish" (Deuteronomy 12:20). And had it been appropriate to count everything of this type - meaning all that Moshe was commanded from the day he was appointed to be a prophet until the day he died - there would be more than three hundred commandments, besides the commandments that are practiced for [all] generations. This is when we count all the commands that came in Egypt, everything about the preparations [for the tabernacle service], and the other ones besides them - some are positive commandments and some are negative commandments, but they are all written in the Torah. And since he did not count all of them, he is perforce also obligated not to count any of them; and not like this other man, who took [only] some of these things to help him, when he toiled to find the [right] tally. And this is the critique we wanted to make about him regarding this principle.

Again I saw our sages saying that the shelamim sacrifices were eaten “for two days and one night” (Mishna, Zevahim 5:7). Now if the day began with dawn, it is not possible to have a third day unless there were two nights.³ The limitation to eating the shelamim sacrifice for two days and one night is derived from the verse “What remains from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt in fire” (Leviticus 7:17). If a day begins with dawn and extends through the night, then it should be permissible to eat the sacrifice through the second night until the morning of the third day. Obviously, the Rabbis were of the opinion that “the third day” began with the evening following the second day.

Again I saw our sages saying that the shelamim sacrifices were eaten “for two days and one night” (Mishna, Zevahim 5:7). Now if the day began with dawn, it is not possible to have a third day unless there were two nights.³ The limitation to eating the shelamim sacrifice for two days and one night is derived from the verse “What remains from the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt in fire” (Leviticus 7:17). If a day begins with dawn and extends through the night, then it should be permissible to eat the sacrifice through the second night until the morning of the third day. Obviously, the Rabbis were of the opinion that “the third day” began with the evening following the second day.

There are, however, latter-day authorities who disagree with the principle formulated by Birkei Yosef. The Gemara, Niddah 61b, declares, "Commandments will be abrogated in the eschatological era," i.e., subsequent to the resurrection of the dead. Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, Kovez Shi'urim, II, no. 29, formulates two possible analyses of that dictum: (1) The underlying principle may be that fulfillment of mizvot is contingent upon a specific time-period or historical epoch. Just as ritual obligations were not incumbent in the pre-Sinaitic era so, also, those obligations will lapse in the post-resurrection era. (2) Alternatively, the principle enunciated in Niddah 61b may simply be that the resurrected dead are not required to perform mizvot. The principle that "the dead are free" of all obligations, derived from Psalms 88:6, entails irrevocable abrogation of all further responsibility for fulfillment of commandments. Hence, the dead are relieved of all ritual obligations even subsequent to their resurrection. According to the latter analysis, release from such obligations is not limited to any particular epoch. Accordingly, the principle would apply even in contemporary times in the unlikely event that a particular corpse would miraculously be restored to life prior to the general resurrection. Whether or not the dead who were restored to life by the prophet Ezekiel were required to observe the commandments is contingent upon which of these two analyses is accepted. Similarly, according to the authorities who maintain that the righteous will be restored to life during the messianic era, the question of their obligation vis-à-vis fulfillment of mizvot in the interim period between their resurrection and the advent of the world-to-come is contingent upon which of these two analyses is regarded as correct. R. Elchanan Wasserman asserts that mizvot are eternally valid and binding, at least in theory, even in the period of the world-to-come. He advances arguments demonstrating that the second analysis is correct and that, in reality, there will be no obligation with regard to fulfillment of commandments in the world-to-come only because death, in and of itself, irrevocably terminates the obligation to perform mizvot.¹³See also Rambam, Sefer ha-Miẓvot, shoresh 3; cf., however, Sifra, Parashat Ẓav (Leviticus 7:35), sec. 158. Accordingly, termination of such obligation is not rescinded by subsequent restoration to life. This position entails the negation of the notion that resurrection serves to nullify, or to reverse, earlier demise.¹⁴An opposing view is espoused by R. Chaim Kanievsky, loc. cit. Since resurrection is not tantamount to a reversal of death, there is no logical manner in which a prior marital relationship can be regarded as having been re-established by resurrection.

We have already said that it is from the roots of the commandment of the sacrifice to abase the sinning soul - 'like the sin-offering, like the guilt-offering, there is one law for them.' I do not need to repeat it for each and every one.

And it is written about impurity of the Temple and its consecrated foods (Leviticus 5:2), "Or a soul that touches anything impure, etc. and it was hidden from him"; and it is stated about it all at the end of the matter (Leviticus 5:6), "And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And the verse does not come explicitly that the liability of the impure one there would be with his entering the Temple or with his eating consecrated meat. Rather, we have understood from the tradition that it speaks about this (Shevuot 6b). And even though the thing is from the tradition, we have found the liability for excision for one who ate consecrated [food] or entered the Temple explicit in another place, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:20), "And the soul that eats meat from the sacrifice of the peace-offering that is to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, he shall be excised"; and another verse (Numbers 19:20) states about the impure one that enters the Temple, "for the Temple of the Lord he has made impure, and he shall be excised." And once excision has been written about its volitional transgression, there is a sacrifice for its inadvertent transgression - with our rule, that everything that is with excision for its volitional transgression, is with a sin-offering for its inadvertent transgression. And it is written about an oath of expression (Leviticus 5:4-6), "Or if a soul swears to express with his lips, etc. and it was hidden from him, etc. And he shall bring his guilt-offering." And from where [do we know] that the liability there [for them] is with a sacrifice that varies up and down? As it is written in the section (Leviticus 5:11), "And if his hand does not reach, etc."

He prohibited us from having anyone impure eat sacrificial foods. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying about a woman who has given birth, "No consecrated item shall she touch" (Leviticus 12:4). And the language of the [Sifra] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Yoledet, Chapter 1:8) is, "Just as one who enters the sanctuary when impure is punished with excision; so too, one who eats consecrated items when impure is punished with excision." And He instructs this in His saying "she shall not touch," about a person that eats consecrated items while impure volitionally, as it is explained in Makkot. And that is their saying there (Makkot 14b), "And an impure person who ate consecrated items [is lashed]. Granted, a punishment [exists], as it is written, 'And the soul that eats from the flesh of a peace-offering [... that soul shall be excised]' (Leviticus 7:20). But from where do we have a prohibition? It comes from, 'No consecrated item shall she touch.'" And there, they said, "This is a prohibition for one who eats. Do you say one who eats [consecrated items while impure]; or perhaps one who touches [them]? [Hence] we learn to say, 'No consecrated item shall she touch, and to the Temple she may not come.' The verse compares consecrated items to the Temple. Just as the Temple involves the taking of a life; so too, do consecrated items involve the taking of a life. And if it is with regards to touching, is there the taking of a life (could such a punishment exist)? Rather, it is with regards to eating." And the [Torah] derived it with the expression of touching, to say that touching is like eating. And from this verse it is made clear to you that one who eats sacrificial foods when impure is liable for excision if he was volitional; and he must offer a variable sacrifice, if it was inadvertent - as we mentioned in Commandment 72 of the Positive Commandments. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in [Chapter] 13 of Zevachim. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)

The commandment of the procedure of the guilt-offering: That we were commanded that the priests execute the process of the guilt-offering according to the manner described in Scripture, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:1), "This is the law of the guilt-offering, etc.," as it is written in the passage. Did I not tell you (Sefer HaChinukh 138) that we should not write the root in these processes, since they are similar to the details of the sacrifices - and one should not seek after their reasons, as they are things that are blocked and sealed.

The commandment of the procedure of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings: That the priests were commanded that they should execute the peace-offerings (sacrifice) according to the statute that is written in the passage, as it is stated (Leviticus 3:1), "If his sacrifice is a sacrifice of peace-offerings, etc." And it states further in the completion of the process (Leviticus 7:11-12), "And this is the law of the sacrifice of the peace offerings[...] If he offers it as a thanksgiving-offering." And under four names are all matters of sacrifices included. And they are the burnt-offering; the sin-offering; the guilt-offering; and the peace-offerings. As any sacrifice offered by the community or the individual is always from one of them. I have already written twice that we should not write the roots for these processes (Sefer HaChinukh 138).

To not leave over meat from the thanksgiving sacrifice: To not leave over anything from the thanksgiving sacrifice until the morning - meaning to say on the morrow of the day of its sacrifice - as it is stated (Leviticus 7:15) about the thanksgiving sacrifice, "you shall not leave it until the morning." And we learned from it to the other [sacrifices] as well, that anything that remains of it after the time of its eating is notar. And one is obligated to burn it, as burning is the positive commandment that rectifies it, as we have written above in this order (Sefer HaChinukh 143). And there, we wrote a hint from its roots and a little of its laws, as is our custom.

The commandment of the burning of the remnant (notar) of the [sacrifices]: That we were commanded to burn the notar - and that is meat of the [sacrifices] that remains after the time limited for their eating has passed - as it is stated (Leviticus 7:17), "And the notar of the meat of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be brunt with fire." And this burning is a positive commandment - as so they say in Mekhilta concerning Pesach (Exodus 12:10), "'You shall not leave any of it, etc., and the notar you shall burn with fire, etc.' - the verse comes to give a positive commandment upon the negative commandment." It is implied that the commandment of burning notar is a positive commandment. And the law of piggul and notar are the same in this, that there is also a positive commandment in its burning, such that we have found Scripture expressing piggul, with the word, notar.

To not eat piggul: To not eat piggul - And piggul is a sacrifice that the priest who is sacrificing it had a disqualifying thought at the time of the slaughter or offering. And a disqualifying thought is, for example, that he made up his mind at the time of the slaughter or offering that he would eat from that sacrifice after the limit for its eating or burn from it that which requires burning after the time limit for burning – as the 'eating' of the altar and the eating of a person is all expressed by eating. And the verse elucidated, that one who eats from it carries his iniquity, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:18), "And if it is surely eaten, etc. and the soul who eats from it shall carry its iniquity." And the carrying of iniquity here is excision, as we shall learn in the Gemara (Zevachim 28b) through an inferential comparison (gezara shava).

And yet its warning – meaning to say, the explicit negative commandment, besides the punishment that is mentioned here – is from that which is written in the inauguration [of the tabernacle], "it shall not be eaten, as it is holy" (Exodus 29:34). And they, may their memory be blessed, said (Pesachim 24a) that this verse includes in its warning all that which has been spoiled of the [sacrifices] and is not fitting to eat, like notar and piggul. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, say (Avodah Zarah 66a) that they are included in the warnings, "You shall not eat any abomination" (Deuteronomy 14:3) – which they expounded (Chullin 114b), "Anything that is abominable for me, is forbidden to eat." And since this is so, we shall say that [that warning (negative commandment) is to make one liable for] additional negative commandments; and the verse here is speaking about the punishment of the one who eats it, as so did the explanation come about it. And that which it stated (Leviticus 7:18), "If it shall surely be eaten on the third day," is meaning to say that he thought about it to eat it on the third day. As so did they, may their memory be blessed, expound (Zevachim 29a), "'And if it shall surely be eaten, etc.' – that is piggul." Bend your ear to hear that the verse is speaking about one who thinks to eat his sacrifice on the third day, that it is spoiled with this thought. And one who eats it is liable for excision, as it is stated about it, "and the soul that eats from it will carry his iniquity." And it is stated about notar (Leviticus 19:8), "And the one who eats it will carry his iniquity, as he has profaned the holy of the Lord, and he shall be excised." And we learned [about] it in Keritot 5a, "Let not an inferential comparison (gezara shava) be light in your eyes; as behold piggul is one of the [important] bodies of Torah, and Scripture only taught it through a gezara shava." As we learn it] from notar, from [the use of] ‘iniquity’ [in both cases] – "just like there it is excision, here too it is excision."

And so [too,] from the matter of the commandment is that which they also said that one who sacrifices who has a disqualifying thought transgresses a negative commandment; as it is stated (Leviticus 7:18), "it shall not be counted (yichashev) for him (which can also be read as, 'he shall not think about it')." And we learned from the tradition (Zevachim 29b) that included in this warning (negative commandment) is about one who sacrifices, that he not have a disqualifying thought. But nonetheless, it is not considered to be from the tally of the three hundred and sixty-five negative commandments, since it is similar to one of the extensions of another negative commandment, which is calculated in the tally – and that is that which is written in the Order of Emor el HaKohanim, "There shall be no blemish in it" (Leviticus 22:21) – and they, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Berakhot 33b), on account of the negative commandment of one who places a blemish in [sacrifices]; as we shall write with God’s help (Sefer Ha Chinukh 287). And also the content of one who has a disqualifying thought is considered similar to one who places a blemish. And hence they did not consider it in the tally. And in any event, he is not lashed for it, since there is no act [involved] with it, but rather only thought. And the rest of the laws of thoughts: which thought disqualifies, for example the thought of changing a name, the thought of a place and the thought of a time; and in which sacrifice; and which process, for example slaughter, sprinkling, reception, taking; and all of the details of the laws of piggul - and also of notar, which is similar to it - are elucidated in many places in the Order of Kedoshim.

To not eat meat of [the sacrifices] that has become impure: That we do not eat meat of [the sacrifices] that has become impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:19), "And meat that touches anything impure shall not be eaten." And the same is the law for an impure man, that it is forbidden for him to eat meat [that is] pure – and as we will write (Sefer HaChinukh 167) in a separate negative commandment, with God’s help. And in the second chapter of Pesachim 24b, they said [that] impurity of the body is with excision; impurity of the meat is with a negative commandment.

From the laws of the commandment is, for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Makkot 14b) that it is forbidden to render [sacrifices] impure or to bring about their impurity. But one who makes them impure is not lashed. Rather it is the pure one who eats them that are impure that is lashed – from that which is written (Leviticus 7:19), "it shall not be eaten." And even though this verse was about the inauguration, the law is the same for all of the other sacrifices. And even one who eats a kazayit of frankincense from the meal-offering which became impure after it was sanctified in a vessel is lashed; as it too is a part of the sacrifice. And the liability only comes with becoming impure [from] a primary source of impurity or its derivative by Torah writ. But on account of rabbinic impurity, he is not lashed [by Torah writ], but we do administer rabbinic lashes of rebellion upon him. And the rest of its details are in the thirteenth chapter of Zevachim.

The commandment of burning meat of [sacrifices] that has become impure: That we were commanded to burn meat of [sacrifices] that has become impure, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:19), "And meat that touches anything impure shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire."

That we not eat forbidden fat (chelev): That we not eat the forbidden fat of a pure animal, as it is stated (Leviticus 7:23), "Any chelev of an ox or sheep or goat you shall not eat."

That we not eat the blood of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird: That we not eat the blood of a [domesticated] beast, a [wild] animal or a bird (Keritot 20b), as it is stated (Leviticus 3:17), "And any blood you shall not eat.' And it is stated in another place (Leviticus 7:26) - "from a bird or a beast" - and a [wild] animal is included in "beast" (Chullin 71a). And the prevention of blood is repeated in many places in the Torah.

And [of] the blood that is forbidden by Torah writ, there is some the prohibition of which is with excision and some with a negative commandment. Lifeblood is with excision - as in the place that excision for blood comes in the Torah, there it is stated life (literally, spirit), as it is stated (Leviticus 17:11), "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." But the prohibition of that which is not lifeblood, but rather the blood of the limbs is only with a negative commandment - since about it is it stated (Leviticus 7:26), "And any blood you shall not eat." And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, elucidated and said (Keritot 22a) that we are liable for excision with the blood that comes out at the time of slaughter, stabbing or decapitation, so long as it has redness in it; with blood stored in the heart; and blood that is let, so long as it flows and comes out - as it too is lifeblood, and therefore we are liable for it. And specifically flowing - to exclude the dripping at the beginning of the letting and at its end, which is not lifeblood, such that we are not liable excision [for it]. And so [too,] the concentrated blood - meaning to say the blood that oozes a little at a time at the time of slaughter, after the pouring blood came out; and so [too,] the blood of the limbs, such as the blood of the spleen, the blood of the kidneys, the blood in the testicles and the blood that lodges in the heart at the time of slaughter - we are not liable excision for it, but rather lashes. And that is when he eats a kazayit of it.

And [it] is practiced at the time of the [Temple] by males and females. And one who transgresses it and eats a kazayit of pure holy meat or impure holy meat while he is still impure with a Torah-level impurity volitionally is liable for excision; inadvertently, he brings a sacrifice that varies up and down, as is written above. And if he ate after he immersed [but] before his sun set or before he brought his atonement - like a woman who gave birth who needs to bring a sacrifice; and so [too,] all who need an atonement - he is lashed. But he is not liable for excision, as it is stated regarding the matter of this excision (Leviticus 7:20), "and his impurity is upon him"; and they, may their memory be blessed, explained, "until all of his impurity be upon him." And if he was impure from a [rabbinic] impurity, he is not lashed - and there is no need to say that he is not liable excision - but rather he is struck with lashes of rebellion.

He prohibited us from eating the forbidden fat (chelev) of a pure beast. And that is His saying, "All chelev of an ox or a sheep or a goat you shall not eat" (Leviticus 7:23). And the prohibition about it has already been repeated; and in its explanation (Leviticus 7:25), He decreed that it is [punished] with excision if one was volitional. But if he was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the first chapter of Chullin. (See Parashat Tzav; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Foods 6.)

To not eat notar: To not eat notar - and that is what remains from the meat of consecrated animals, from a sacrifice that was brought according to its commanded [specifications] after the time that it is fit to eat from it, as it is stated about the inauguratory sacrifices (Exodus 29:33), "it shall not be eaten, they are holy." And the explanation came about this (Meilah 17b), "[It refers to] anything that is consecrated [that is] disqualified, to give a negative commandment on its eating." And this is hinted to by the verse, in its stating, "they are holy": This third person, which is "they," includes all that which is disqualified of the consecrated animals. But we should not learn from this that notar and pigul (sacrifices disqualified by the wrong thought) are considered one negative commandment, as they are two topics - as I have written above on the prohibition of pigul in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 144). And we found about them that two [different] verses came concerning the punishments, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18), "And if it is surely eaten, etc."; and it is written, after it, "and the soul that eats it will carry its iniquity" - and this carrying of iniquity is excision, as we learn from a comparison with notar. As here, it is written concerning notar (Leviticus 19:6-8), "and that which remains to the third day[...] is piggul, it is not acceptable. And one who eats them will carry his iniquity, since he profaned the holy of God, and excised, etc." And hence, even if the warning for both of them is from one verse, it is not made impossible because of this to consider them two [separate] negative commandments. And so did they say in Meilah 17b, "Pigul and notar do not combine because they are two topics, etc." - as it is explained there that there are things that do not combine and there are things that combine.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Avodah Zarah 67b) that [only] a carcass that is fit for a (gentile) stranger [to eat] is called a carcass and carries liability for its eating; but a carcass that is not fit for a stranger - meaning to say, a putrid carcass - does not carry liability for its eating. And because of this, the verse was lengthy to say, "you may give it to the stranger" - to teach you this. As if it were not so, there is no need to teach us to who to give that which we have. And it should not be said that it is coming to permit its benefit, as it is already written in another place (Leviticus 7:24), "Fat of the carcass and fat of the 'torn' [animal] may be used for any work." And from here they, may their memory be blessed, learned (Avodah Zarah 65b) the law that exuding taste that spoils is permissible. As we know through this that the Torah only forbids and makes liable for the eating of things that are fitting for people to eat; not for something that disgust a person's soul, as that is considered just like any dirt. And this is the dispensation that is mentioned in the Gemara about forbidden vinegar that fell into split beans, since it spoils them. And from this principle, we have become accustomed to purge vessels in boiling water that have not been used for a day, even though there is not sixty parts in the water corresponding to [the mass] of the vessel - as the absorbed [prohibited matter] that comes out from [it] when it is has not been used in a day is spoiled. And since the absorbed [matter] went out from the vessel due to the power of the water the nature of which is to purge and take out all of what is absorbed in the vessel - even though the vessel sits afterward with the absorbed waters that the vessel expunged into the boiling waters that are less than sixty [parts to it] and goes back and absorbs from it - it is not prohibited through this, as the [absorbed matter] is like a putrid carcass, which the Torah permitted, as we have said.