Our Gemara on the top of Amud Aleph continues a discussion about the qualities of earthenware clay vessels. Unlike metal vessels, which can be purged via boiling water and fully expel the contents absorbed in the walls, earthenware clay vessels absorb foodstuffs and flavors, but cannot be fully purged. Therefore, they are difficult to kasher and can as only be restored by being broken and reformed in a kiln.
Symbolically, some mystics see the clay vessel as a metaphor for the physical body. Toldos Yitzchok (Bamidbar 5:17) says certain sins leave such a strong impression that they cannot be purged from the person except through his death—i.e., the shattering of the vessel.
Is there no hope other than death? I’d like to think not. If we continue in this metaphor, reviewing what we learned on the prior daf (33b), there are possible ways to kasher the utensil without utterly destroying it:
Rabbi Yehuda Nesia raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If one returned prohibited containers to the furnace and they whitened due to its heat, what is the halakha? Is the fire assumed to expunge the absorbed wine or not?
Rabbi Ami said to him: If brine burns away the wine, all the more so is it not clear that fire does as well? It was also stated that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to jugs belonging to gentiles that one returned to the furnace, once their tar coating has disintegrated they are permitted.
So the vessel does not actually have to be shattered, but exposed to enough heat that its “tar disintegrates.” We can understand this metaphorically: If the heat and passion of repentance peels away the tar coating (defenses and rationalizations), total destruction is not inevitable.
But there is more:
Rav Ashi said: Do not say that the jugs must stay in the furnace until the tar falls apart entirely; rather, even if it only softens, the jug is permitted, despite the fact that the tar did not fall off.
Metaphorically, we do not even require a complete sweeping elimination of all defenses—rather, a softening and an opening is sufficient.
And there still is more:
With regard to a situation in which the tar was removed by dropping ignited splinters of wood [kinsa] into the jug, Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree: One deemed the jug prohibited, and one deemed it permitted. The Gemara adds: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the one who deemed it prohibited.
Staying with our metaphor, internal stirrings of the “Jew at heart” without any action do not generate enough heat to purify the vessel. However, Tosafos (ibid, “kinsa”) rules:
Rabbi Moshe from Coucy [states] that even though we rule in accordance with the opinion that prohibits, nevertheless, it is permissible to place the barrel on the fire if the fire is so large and strong from within that one’s hand would be scalded from the outside.
And finally: If the stirrings within the heart are so powerful that the outside becomes hot enough to scald, then even if there is no external action, this too reaches a level of purification.
In principle, certain sins indeed leave a mark and are absorbed so deeply that the body must be destroyed. Yet, if the internal actions and repentance reach a level that rationalizations peel away—or at least significantly weaken—the vessel is reformed without actual destruction. Matters of the heart alone are not enough, but when they come with a burning conviction that compels physical change, even in potentia, it is sufficient to avert spiritual doom.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com