Zevachim 93

בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא ניתז על בגד טמא מהו אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מדקמיבעיא ליה הכי שמע מינה היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה אין דמה טעון כיבוס

§ In a related matter, Rami bar Ḥama asked of Rav Ḥisda: If the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto a ritually impure garment, so that the blood became impure and unfit for presentation, what is the halakha? Does the garment require laundering? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: From the fact that Rami bar Ḥama asked the question in this manner, with regard to ritually pure blood that sprayed onto an impure garment, and not with regard to blood that was already impure that sprayed onto a garment, conclude from it that he holds that even if the sin offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, a garment onto which its blood sprayed does not require laundering.

הני מילי בזה אחר זה אבל בבת אחת לא או דלמא לא שנא אמר ליה פלוגתא דרבי אלעזר ורבנן אליבא דרבה וכדקא מתריץ אביי

His question, therefore, is: Does this statement apply only when one event, the spraying of the blood, occurs after the other event, i.e., the disqualification of the blood? But if the spraying and the disqualification occur simultaneously, as in this case, perhaps the principle does not apply, and the garment must be laundered. Or, perhaps there is no difference whether the events occur this way or that way, and even if the offering becomes unfit only as the blood touches the garment, it still does not require laundering? Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Ḥama: The matter is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis, in accordance with the explanation of Rabba, and as Abaye resolves it.

דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר מי חטאת שנטמאו מטהרין שהרי נדה מזין עליה

The Gemara elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to water of purification, which has been sanctified by the ashes of the red heifer, even if the water is rendered impure it nevertheless performs its function and purifies a person from the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. This is evident because those performing the rite would sprinkle water of purification even on a menstruating woman who has been rendered impure by a corpse. Although her menstruation impurity renders the water of purification impure when it touches her, it is effective in removing the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is in opposition to that of the Rabbis.

ואמר רבה רבי אלעזר בשיטת רבי עקיבא רבו אמרה דאמר העברת כלי על גבי מקום טמא כמונח דמי

And concerning this dispute, Rabba says: Although it would seem that the water of purification applied to a menstruating woman does not become impure until it touches her, the case may still provide precedent for all water of purification that has become impure, as follows: Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Akiva, who says that passing a vessel containing water of purification over the place where a ritually impure item is renders the vessel considered as if resting there, so that the water becomes impure. Consequently, just as the water of purification is effective for the menstruating woman although it has become impure when hovering above her, water of purification always remains effective after having contracted ritual impurity.

דתנן היה עומד חוץ לתנור ושרץ בתנור והושיט ידו לחלון ונטל את הלגין והעבירו על פי תנור רבי עקיבא מטמא וחכמים מטהרין ובהא פליגי דרבי עקיבא סבר כמונח דמי ורבנן סברי לאו כמונח דמי

That is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Para 10:5): There is a dispute with regard to the case of a ritually pure person who was standing beyond an oven, which stood between him and the wall, and a carcass of a creeping animal, which imparts impurity, was in the oven; and the person stretched out his hand to the window and took the jug [halagin] containing water of purification and passed it over the opening of the oven. Rabbi Akiva deems the water of purification impure, although the jug has merely passed over the oven’s opening and has not come to rest on it, and the Rabbis deem the water pure. And according to Rabba, in this manner do they disagree: That Rabbi Akiva holds that the jug is considered as if resting on the opening of the oven, and the Rabbis hold that the jug is not considered as if resting there.

ואיתיביה אביי מודה רבי עקיבא בהזאה שהעבירה על כלי חרס טמא על גבי משכב ומושב טמא שהיא טהורה שאין לך דבר שמטמא למעלה כלמטה אלא כזית מן המת ושאר כל המאהילין לאיתויי אבן המנוגעת

And Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s interpretation from a baraita (Tosefta, Para 10:6): Although he deems the water of purification impure in the previous case, Rabbi Akiva concedes that in the act of sprinkling, in which the person passed the water of purification over an impure earthenware vessel or over an impure item designated for lying or sitting, the water remains pure. This is so because there is nothing that renders impure all that is in the airspace directly above it, like anything below that touches it, other than an olive-bulk from a corpse and all other items which impart ritual impurity to those items which overlie them, including a stone marked with leprosy. Such a stone also imparts overlying impurity, rendering impure anything under the same roof or, if there is no roof, in the airspace directly above it up to the sky.

אלא אמר אביי דכולי עלמא לאו כמונח דמי והכא בהא קמיפלגי דרבי עקיבא סבר גזרינן שמא ינוח ורבנן סברי לא גזרינן ומודה רבי עקיבא בהזאה כיון דנפק נפק

Rather, Abaye said: Everyone agrees that a vessel containing water of purification passing over an item that is ritually impure is not considered as if it is resting on it. And here, with regard to the jug being taken over the oven, they disagree about this: Rabbi Akiva holds that we decree that the vessel contracts impurity by rabbinic law, since perhaps a vessel carried above an impure item will come to rest directly on that impure item. And the Rabbis hold: We do not decree that the vessel contracts impurity in such a case. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that in the act of sprinkling, while the water passes over an impure item, once it has set forth into the air, it has set forth. Since the water has left the person’s hand, the person cannot leave it to rest upon an impure item.

ורבי אלעזר ורבנן במאי קמיפלגי אמר אביי בדנין טומאה קדומה מטומאה שבאותה שעה קמיפלגי

The Gemara asks: If so, Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis would agree that the water of purification does not become impure before touching a menstruating woman. And, if so, then Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis, who disagree as to whether impure water of purification renders one pure, with regard to what case do they disagree? Abaye said: They disagree with regard to whether one may derive the halakha of impurity rendered earlier, before sprinkling the water of purification, from the halakha of impurity rendered at that very moment that the purification occurs, as in the case of the menstruating woman.

מר סבר דנין ומר סבר אין דנין

One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds: One derives the halakha in this manner, and, therefore, the water effects purification even if the water has become impure first. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive this halakha. Therefore, Rav Ḥisda’s answer to Rami bar Hama is that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, if the impurity occurs in the moment that the sin offering’s blood touches the impure garment, the halakha is the same as it is when the blood has become impure before reaching the garment. In both cases, the garment is exempt from laundering. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the halakha is not the same in both cases: If the blood becomes impure at the very moment it reaches the garment, laundering is required.

רבא אמר דכולי עלמא אין דנין

Rava said: The case of sprinkling water of purification upon a menstruating woman has no bearing upon the case of the sprayed garment, as everyone holds that one does not derive the halakha of impurity incurred earlier from the halakha of impurity incurred at that very moment.

והכא בהא קמיפלגי דרבי אלעזר סבר הזאה צריכה שיעור ומצטרפין להזאות ורבנן סברי הזאה אין צריכה שיעור

Rava continues: But here, with regard to the precedent of the menstruating woman, they disagree about this: Rabbi Elazar holds that sprinkling the water of purification requires a specific measure of the water, but sprinklings of small quantities combine to constitute sprinklings of the required measure. Therefore, if the initial sprinkling on the woman does not contain a sufficient measure of water, the small quantity of water of purification first becomes impure, but it later combines with the subsequent sprinkling to purify her. Consequently, water of purification that has already become impure may effect purification. But the Rabbis hold that sprinkling of the water does not require a measure. Accordingly, the woman is purified by the initial sprinkling, although the purification water becomes impure at the very moment that it reaches her; and this does not have any bearing on a case in which the purification water is impure before it touches the person upon whom it is sprinkled.

חטאת פסולה כו׳ תנו רבנן מדמה מדם כשירה ולא מדם פסולה רבי עקיבא אומר היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה דמה טעון כיבוס לא היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה אין דמה טעון כיבוס

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a disqualified sin offering, a garment on which its blood is sprayed does not require laundering, whether the offering had a moment of qualification when its blood was fit for sprinkling or whether it did not have a moment of qualification. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a garment on which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, the verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment” (Leviticus 6:20), teaching that laundering is required when some of the blood of a fit sin offering is sprayed on the garment, but this is not so in the case of the blood of a disqualified sin offering. Rabbi Akiva says: If the sin offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, a garment onto which its blood sprayed still requires laundering. If it did not have a period of fitness at all and was then disqualified, a garment onto which its blood sprayed does not require laundering.

ורבי שמעון אומר אחד זה ואחד זה אין דמה טעון כיבוס מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון כתיב אתה וכתיב מדמה חד להיכא דהיתה לו שעת הכושר

And Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to both this sin offering that had a period of fitness and that sin offering that did not, a garment onto which its blood sprayed does not require laundering. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: It is written in the Torah with regard to laundering the blood of a sin offering: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22), and only it. And it is written earlier in that same section: “Of its blood” (Leviticus 6:20), but not all its blood. Therefore, there are two exclusionary terms; one excludes laundering for the situation where the unfit offering had a period of fitness, and the other excludes a situation in which the offering did not have a period of fitness.

ורבי עקיבא אתה פרט לתרומה ורבי שמעון לטעמיה דאמר קדשים קלים אין טעונין מריקה ושטיפה וכל שכן תרומה

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva interpret these verses? From the term “of its blood” he derives that the offering that has no period of fitness is excluded. The exclusion indicated by the word “it” teaches that the requirement for scouring and rinsing a copper vessel in which sacred food was cooked excludes teruma, i.e., scouring and rinsing is not required for a vessel in which teruma was cooked. And rejecting Rabbi Akiva’s understanding, Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing as explained on 96b, and all the more so does teruma not require this. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon does not need a verse to exclude teruma, and he interprets the verse to exclude both a sin offering that had a period of fitness and a sin offering that did not have a period of fitness.

מתני׳ ניתז מן הצואר על הבגד אינו טעון כיבוס מן הקרן ומן היסוד אינו טעון כיבוס נשפך על הרצפה ואספו אין טעון כיבוס אין טעון כיבוס אלא דם שנתקבל בכלי וראוי להזאה

MISHNA: If the blood of a sin offering sprayed from the neck of the animal onto a garment, the garment does not require laundering. If the blood was collected in a vessel and sprinkled on the altar and sprayed from the corner or from the base of the altar onto the garment, the garment does not require laundering, as the blood was already sprinkled and its mitzva was fulfilled. If the blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and the priest collected the blood and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן יכול ניתז מן הצואר על הבגד יהא טעון כיבוס תלמוד לומר אשר יזה לא אמרתי לך אלא בראוי להזאה תניא אידך יכול ניתז מן הקרן ומן היסוד יהא טעון כיבוס תלמוד לומר אשר יזה פרט לזה שכבר הוזה

GEMARA: The Gemara cites sources for the halakhot mentioned in the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if blood sprayed from the neck of the animal onto a garment, the garment should require laundering. Therefore, the verse states: “On which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20), which teaches: I told you that a garment requires laundering only with regard to blood which is fit for sprinkling, which must be collected in a vessel directly from the neck of the animal. It is taught in another baraita: One might have thought that if blood sprayed from the corner or from the base of the altar, the garment should require laundering. Therefore, the verse states: “On which it shall be sprinkled,” excluding that blood that was already sprinkled.

נשפך על הרצפה כו׳

§ The mishna teaches: If the blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and the priest collected the blood and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering.

הא תו למה לי מה טעם קאמר מה טעם נשפך על הרצפה ואספו אין טעון כיבוס לפי שאין טעון כיבוס אלא דם שנתקבל בכלי וראוי להזייה

With regard to the statement that only blood that was collected in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires the laundering of the garment on which it sprayed, the Gemara asks: Why do I also need this? After all, it was already taught that if blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. The Gemara answers: This is not an additional halakha, but rather the mishna is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason that if the blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and the priest collected it and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering? This is because it is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering.

ראוי להזאה למעוטי מאי למעוטי קיבל פחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה ופחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה

§ The mishna teaches: It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering. The Gemara asks: As it was already taught that when disqualified blood is sprayed on a garment, it does not require laundering, this reiteration serves to exclude what? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude the case where a priest received less blood than is sufficient for sprinkling in this vessel, and less than is sufficient for sprinkling in that vessel, and then he mixed together the blood from the two vessels. In such a case, even though the combined amount is now enough for sprinkling, the blood did not become fit for sprinkling.

דתניא רבי חלפתא בר שאול אומר קידש פחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה ופחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה לא קידש

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sanctification of water of purification, Rabbi Ḥalafta bar Shaul says: If a priest sanctified less than is sufficient for sprinkling in this vessel and less than is sufficient for sprinkling in that vessel, and he then mixed together the water from the two vessels, he has not sanctified it to become water of purification.

איבעיא להו בדם מהו הלכתא היא ומהלכתא לא גמרינן

In a related issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a priest did this for the blood of an internal sin offering, collecting less than is sufficient for sprinkling in each vessel and then mixing all the blood together, what is the halakha? Is Rabbi Ḥalafta’s statement about the water of purification a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and we do not learn from such a halakha an application to a different matter?

או דלמא התם מאי טעמא דכתיב וטבל במים הכא נמי כתיב וטבל בדם

Or, perhaps: What is the reason there, that the combined water of purification is not fit for sprinkling? It may be because it is written about sprinkling the water: “And dip it in the water” (Numbers 19:18), stressing that it is to be dipped in precisely the same water that was first placed in the vessel. This indicates that from the outset there must be an amount sufficient for sprinkling. If so, then here also there is comparable language employed with regard to the blood of a sin offering. It is written: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6). Does this prove that from the outset there must be sufficient blood for sprinkling?

תא שמע דאמר רבי זריקא אמר רבי אלעזר אף בדם לא קידש

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Elazar says: Even in the case of the blood of a sin offering, if one collected two insufficient amounts and then mixed them together, he did not sanctify the blood to make it fit for sprinkling on the altar, and therefore, if it sprays on a garment, one is not required to launder the garment.

אמר רבא תניא וטבל ולא מספג בדם עד שיהא בדם שיעור טבילה מעיקרו מן הדם מן הדם שבענין

§ Rava says: It is taught in a baraita with regard to the internal sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary: The verse states: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6); and there must be enough blood in the vessel for the priest to dip his finger in it so that he does not need to wipe blood from the sides or the bottom of the vessel onto his finger. The verse states: “In the blood,” teaching that the blood is unfit for sprinkling unless there is a measure of the blood fit for dipping in the vessel from the outset, and the blood is disqualified if more blood is added to a vessel that initially contained less than the required measure. The verse states: “Sprinkle of the blood,” which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel.

ואיצטריך למיכתב בדם דאי כתב רחמנא וטבל הוה אמינא אף על פי דליכא שיעור טבילה מעיקרו כתב [רחמנא] בדם

And it was necessary for the Torah to write the term: “In the blood,” as well as the term: “And the priest shall dip.” As, had the Merciful One written only: “And the priest shall dip,” I would say that if there is sufficient blood at the time of dipping, even though there was not a measure of blood fit for dipping in the vessel from the beginning, it is nevertheless fit for dipping. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “In the blood,” to teach that there must be sufficient blood from the beginning.

ואי כתב רחמנא בדם הוה אמינא אפילו מספג כתב רחמנא וטבל

And if the Merciful One had written only: “In the blood,” I would say that if at the beginning there was an appropriate measure of blood, it is not necessary for the vessel to retain a measure of enough blood throughout the whole rite, and even if he eventually wipes blood off of the vessel onto his finger, it is sufficient for sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And the priest shall dip,” to teach that there must remain enough blood to dip his finger each time.

מן הדם שבענין למעוטי מאי אמר רבא למעוטי שיריים שבאצבע מסייע לרבי אלעזר דאמר רבי אלעזר שיריים שבאצבע פסולין

The cited baraita states: The verse states: “Sprinkle of the blood,” which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel. The Gemara asks: In order to exclude what was this mentioned? Rava said: This serves to exclude the remainder of the blood that is on the priest’s finger after sprinkling, which may not be used for further sprinkling, as he must dip his finger in the blood again for each sprinkle. Rava continues: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: The remainder of the blood that is on the priest’s finger after sprinkling is unfit for further sprinkling.

אמר ליה רבין בר רב אדא לרב אמר תלמידך אמר רב עמרם תנינא היה מזה וניתזה הזאה מידו עד שלא הזה טעון כיבוס משהזה אין טעון כיבוס

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rav, i.e., Rava: Your student says that Rav Amram says: We already learn a baraita opposing Rabbi Elazar’s opinion: If a priest was sprinkling the blood of an internal sin offering, and a sprinkle sprayed from his hand onto a garment, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If it sprayed before he sprinkled, the garment requires laundering, but if it sprayed once he has sprinkled, it does not require laundering.

מאי לאו הכי קאמר עד שלא גמר מלהזות טעון כיבוס משגמר להזות אין טעון כיבוס לא הכי קאמר עד שלא יצתה הזאה מידו טעון כיבוס משיצתה הזאה מידו אין טעון כיבוס

Ravin bar Rav Adda explains: What, is it not this that the baraita is saying: If the blood sprayed on a garment before the priest concluded sprinkling, the garment requires laundering, even if it sprayed from the remainder on his finger; but if it sprayed once the priest has concluded sprinkling, it does not require laundering? This indicates that blood sprayed from the remainder on his finger requires laundering, so it must be fit for sprinkling. Rava replied: No, this is what the baraita is saying: If the blood sprayed on a garment before the sprinkling has left his hand, it requires laundering, but if it sprayed once the sprinkling has left his hand, the remainder on his finger does not require laundering if it then sprays onto a garment.

איתיביה אביי גמר מלהזות מקנח ידו בגופה של פרה גמר אין לא גמר לא אמר ליה גמר מקנח ידו בגופה של פרה לא גמר מקנח אצבעו

Abaye raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from what is taught about sprinkling the blood of the red heifer in a mishna (Para 3:9): When the priest has concluded sprinkling the blood, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer. Evidently, if he concluded sprinkling, yes, he does wipe his hand; but if he did not conclude sprinkling, he does not wipe his hand, even though a remainder is left on his finger. Evidently, this remainder is fit for sprinkling. Rava said to him: The mishna is to be understood otherwise: If he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his entire hand on the body of the red heifer; but if he has not concluded sprinkling, he wipes only his finger after each sprinkling.

בשלמא גמר מקנח ידו בגופה של פרה שנאמר ושרף את הפרה לעיניו אלא אצבעו במאי מקנח אמר אביי בשפת מזרק כדכתיב כפורי זהב

The Gemara asks: Granted, if he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer, as it is stated: “And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood” (Numbers 19:5), indicating that the remaining blood must be incinerated together with the flesh. But on what does he wipe his finger after each sprinkling, since he must not wipe it on the body of the heifer, which might cause hair to stick to his finger, interfering with the sprinkling? Abaye said: He wipes his finger on the lip of the bowl holding the blood for sprinkling, as it is written: “Atoning bowls [keforei] of gold” (Ezra 1:10). The atoning bowls are so named because the priest wipes his finger on them, and the word keforei indicates cleansing by way of wiping (see Ḥullin 8b).

מתני׳ ניתז על העור עד שלא הופשט אינו טעון כיבוס משהופשט טעון כיבוס דברי רבי יהודה

MISHNA: Apropos laundering the blood of a sin offering from garments onto which it sprayed, the mishna discusses what is considered a garment. If the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto the hide of an animal before it was flayed from the animal, the hide does not require laundering, because its status is not that of a garment, which is susceptible to ritual impurity. If the blood sprayed onto the hide after it was flayed, it requires laundering; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי אלעזר אומר אף משהופשט אינו טעון כיבוס אלא מקום הדם ודבר שהוא ראוי לקבל טומאה וראוי לכיבוס

Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the blood sprayed onto the hide after it was flayed, it does not require laundering until it is crafted into a vessel or garment that is actually susceptible to ritual impurity. This is the principle with regard to laundering: A garment must be laundered only in the place where the blood was sprayed, and only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering.

אחד הבגד ואחד השק ואחד העור טעונין כיבוס והכיבוס במקום קדוש ושבירת כלי חרס במקום קדוש ומריקה ושטיפה בכלי נחושת במקום קדוש זה חומר בחטאת מקדשי קדשים

With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these require laundering. And the laundering must be performed in a sacred place, the Temple courtyard, and the breaking of an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed in a sacred place, and scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed in a sacred place. With regard to this matter, a stringency applies to a sin offering more than it applies to offerings of the most sacred order.

גמ׳ מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן בגד אין לי אלא בגד מנין לרבות עור משהופשט תלמוד לומר אשר יזה עליה תכבס

GEMARA: With regard to blood sprayed on a flayed hide, from where are these matters, i.e., the divergent opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived? The Gemara explains: They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to laundering: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment” (Leviticus 6:20). I have derived only a garment; from where do I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed? The same verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled,” to include any item on which the blood sprayed.

יכול שאני מרבה עור עד שלא הופשט תלמוד לומר בגד מה בגד הראוי לקבל טומאה אף כל הראוי לקבל טומאה דברי רבי יהודה

One might have thought that I would include a hide even before it was flayed. To counter this, the verse states: “Garment.” Consequently, just as any manner of garment is an item fit to become ritually impure if one intends to use it, e.g., making it a patch for his clothing, so too the requirement of laundering applies to any item that becomes fit to become ritually impure when one intends to use it as is. A hide is fit to become ritually impure after it has been flayed, when one intends to use it for a rug or the like; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי אלעזר אומר בגד אין לי אלא בגד מנין לרבות שק

Rabbi Elazar holds that, even after it is flayed, the hide does not require laundering. In interpreting the verse, he says: The verse states: “Garment,” and from this I have derived only a garment; from where do I include sackcloth