Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 15, 2018 | 讙壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 93

Study Guide Zevachim 93.
Blood that is good to be sprinkled that spills on a cloth, requires the cloth to be laundered. What if it came in contact with an impure cloth and at the moment it touched the cloth, the blood became impure – would that not require laundering? An attempt to answer the question is brought from another topic with a debate and聽a few different explanations regarding what the debate is about. According to Abaye’s interpretation, the debate there would be the same debate as in our case. according to the other interpretations, this debate has nothing to do with our case. The blood needs to be first collected in a holy vessel – if not, also if it sprinkled onto a cloth, it would not need laundering. Other laws related to collection in a vessel are mentioned.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讬转讝 注诇 讘讙讚 讟诪讗 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讚拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇讛 讗讬谉 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

搂 In a related matter, Rami bar 岣ma asked of Rav 岣sda: 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 岣ma 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.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗讘诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讛 讜讻讚拽讗 诪转专讬抓 讗讘讬讬

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 岣sda said to Rami bar 岣ma: 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讚讛 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讛

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鈥檚 opinion is in opposition to that of the Rabbis.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讛注讘专转 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬

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.

讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇转谞讜专 讜砖专抓 讘转谞讜专 讜讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇讞诇讜谉 讜谞讟诇 讗转 讛诇讙讬谉 讜讛注讘讬专讜 注诇 驻讬 转谞讜专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬

That is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讛讝讗讛 砖讛注讘讬专讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 讟诪讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讟诪讗 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖诪讟诪讗 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 讗诇讗 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪讗讛讬诇讬谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗讘谉 讛诪谞讜讙注转

And Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬谞讜讞 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讛讝讗讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 谞驻拽

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鈥檚 hand, the person cannot leave it to rest upon an impure item.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讚谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讚讜诪讛 诪讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉

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 岣sda鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉

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.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讝讗讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专

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.

讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讚诪讛 诪讚诐 讻砖讬专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚诐 驻住讜诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇讛 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇讛 讗讬谉 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

搂 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: 鈥淎nd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转讬讘 讗转讛 讜讻转讬讘 诪讚诪讛 讞讚 诇讛讬讻讗 讚讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

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: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:22), and only it. And it is written earlier in that same section: 鈥淥f its blood鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗转讛 驻专讟 诇转专讜诪讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva interpret these verses? From the term 鈥渙f its blood鈥 he derives that the offering that has no period of fitness is excluded. The exclusion indicated by the word 鈥渋t鈥 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪谉 讛拽专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 谞砖驻讱 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗诇讗 讚诐 砖谞转拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讜专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讘专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讗讛 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻讜诇 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛拽专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 驻专讟 诇讝讛 砖讻讘专 讛讜讝讛

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: 鈥淥n which it shall be sprinkled鈥 (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: 鈥淥n which it shall be sprinkled,鈥 excluding that blood that was already sprinkled.

谞砖驻讱 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讻讜壮

搂 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.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 谞砖驻讱 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗诇讗 讚诐 砖谞转拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讜专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讬讬讛

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.

专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讗讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽讬讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛

搂 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞诇驻转讗 讘专 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽讬讚砖 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sanctification of water of purification, Rabbi 岣lafta 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讚诐 诪讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

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 岣lafta鈥檚 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?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讟讘诇 讘诪讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讟讘诇 讘讚诐

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: 鈥淎nd dip it in the water鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood鈥 (Leviticus 4:6). Does this prove that from the outset there must be sufficient blood for sprinkling?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 讘讚诐 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讜讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪住驻讙 讘讚诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讚诐 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讜 诪谉 讛讚诐 诪谉 讛讚诐 砖讘注谞讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood鈥 (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: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 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: 鈥淪prinkle of the blood,鈥 which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘讚诐 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讜 讻转讘 [专讞诪谞讗] 讘讚诐

And it was necessary for the Torah to write the term: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 as well as the term: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip.鈥 As, had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip,鈥 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: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 to teach that there must be sufficient blood from the beginning.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讚诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住驻讙 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip,鈥 to teach that there must remain enough blood to dip his finger each time.

诪谉 讛讚诐 砖讘注谞讬谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讘讗爪讘注 诪住讬讬注 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讘讗爪讘注 驻住讜诇讬谉

The cited baraita states: The verse states: 鈥淪prinkle of the blood,鈥 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 finger after sprinkling is unfit for further sprinkling.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 转谞讬谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讜谞讬转讝讛 讛讝讗讛 诪讬讚讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讛讝讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诪专 诪诇讛讝讜转 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讙诪专 诇讛讝讜转 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖诇讗 讬爪转讛 讛讝讗讛 诪讬讚讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讬爪转讛 讛讝讗讛 诪讬讚讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讙诪专 诪诇讛讝讜转 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讜 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讙诪专 讗讬谉 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讜 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 驻专讛 诇讗 讙诪专 诪拽谞讞 讗爪讘注讜

Abaye raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讙诪专 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讜 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 驻专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇注讬谞讬讜 讗诇讗 讗爪讘注讜 讘诪讗讬 诪拽谞讞 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖驻转 诪讝专拽 讻讚讻转讬讘 讻驻讜专讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, if he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood鈥 (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: 鈥淎toning bowls [keforei] of gold鈥 (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 岣llin 8b).

诪转谞讬壮 谞讬转讝 注诇 讛注讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜驻砖讟 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讛讚诐 讜讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜专讗讜讬 诇讻讬讘讜住

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.

讗讞讚 讛讘讙讚 讜讗讞讚 讛砖拽 讜讗讞讚 讛注讜专 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 讜讛讻讬讘讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜砖讘讬专转 讻诇讬 讞专住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讞讟讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 注讜专 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 注诇讬讛 转讻讘住

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: 鈥淎nd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). I have derived only a garment; from where do I include an animal鈥檚 hide after it was flayed? The same verse states: 鈥淵ou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled,鈥 to include any item on which the blood sprayed.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 注讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 诪讛 讘讙讚 讛专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

One might have thought that I would include a hide even before it was flayed. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淕arment.鈥 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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖拽

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 93

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诪专讘 讞住讚讗 谞讬转讝 注诇 讘讙讚 讟诪讗 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讚拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇讛 讗讬谉 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

搂 In a related matter, Rami bar 岣ma asked of Rav 岣sda: 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 岣ma 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.

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗讘诇 讘讘转 讗讞转 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讛 讜讻讚拽讗 诪转专讬抓 讗讘讬讬

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 岣sda said to Rami bar 岣ma: 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞讟诪讗讜 诪讟讛专讬谉 砖讛专讬 谞讚讛 诪讝讬谉 注诇讬讛

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鈥檚 opinion is in opposition to that of the Rabbis.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 讛注讘专转 讻诇讬 注诇 讙讘讬 诪拽讜诐 讟诪讗 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬

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.

讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讞讜抓 诇转谞讜专 讜砖专抓 讘转谞讜专 讜讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇讞诇讜谉 讜谞讟诇 讗转 讛诇讙讬谉 讜讛注讘讬专讜 注诇 驻讬 转谞讜专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讟诪讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讟讛专讬谉 讜讘讛讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬

That is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讛讝讗讛 砖讛注讘讬专讛 注诇 讻诇讬 讞专住 讟诪讗 注诇 讙讘讬 诪砖讻讘 讜诪讜砖讘 讟诪讗 砖讛讬讗 讟讛讜专讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖诪讟诪讗 诇诪注诇讛 讻诇诪讟讛 讗诇讗 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛诪转 讜砖讗专 讻诇 讛诪讗讛讬诇讬谉 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗讘谉 讛诪谞讜讙注转

And Abaye raised an objection to Rabba鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗讜 讻诪讜谞讞 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讙讝专讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讬谞讜讞 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘讛讝讗讛 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 谞驻拽

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鈥檚 hand, the person cannot leave it to rest upon an impure item.

讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘谞谉 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讚谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 拽讚讜诪讛 诪讟讜诪讗讛 砖讘讗讜转讛 砖注讛 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉

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 岣sda鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉

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.

讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讛讝讗讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讛讝讗讜转 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讛讝讗讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专

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.

讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讚诪讛 诪讚诐 讻砖讬专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚诐 驻住讜诇讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇讛 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜谞驻住诇讛 讗讬谉 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

搂 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: 鈥淎nd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讗讬谉 讚诪讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻转讬讘 讗转讛 讜讻转讬讘 诪讚诪讛 讞讚 诇讛讬讻讗 讚讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

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: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:22), and only it. And it is written earlier in that same section: 鈥淥f its blood鈥 (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.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗转讛 驻专讟 诇转专讜诪讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 转专讜诪讛

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva interpret these verses? From the term 鈥渙f its blood鈥 he derives that the offering that has no period of fitness is excluded. The exclusion indicated by the word 鈥渋t鈥 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪谉 讛拽专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 谞砖驻讱 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗诇讗 讚诐 砖谞转拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讜专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讗讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 讘专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讗讛 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讻讜诇 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛拽专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讬讛讗 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 驻专讟 诇讝讛 砖讻讘专 讛讜讝讛

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: 鈥淥n which it shall be sprinkled鈥 (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: 鈥淥n which it shall be sprinkled,鈥 excluding that blood that was already sprinkled.

谞砖驻讱 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讻讜壮

搂 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.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 谞砖驻讱 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讗住驻讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗诇讗 讚诐 砖谞转拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讜专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讬讬讛

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.

专讗讜讬 诇讛讝讗讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽讬讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛

搂 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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讞诇驻转讗 讘专 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 拽讬讚砖 驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛 讜驻讞讜转 诪讻讚讬 讛讝讬讬讛 讘讻诇讬 讝讛 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sanctification of water of purification, Rabbi 岣lafta 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘讚诐 诪讛讜 讛诇讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪讛诇讻转讗 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

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 岣lafta鈥檚 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?

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讟讘诇 讘诪讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讟讘诇 讘讚诐

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: 鈥淎nd dip it in the water鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood鈥 (Leviticus 4:6). Does this prove that from the outset there must be sufficient blood for sprinkling?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗祝 讘讚诐 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讜讟讘诇 讜诇讗 诪住驻讙 讘讚诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讚诐 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讜 诪谉 讛讚诐 诪谉 讛讚诐 砖讘注谞讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood鈥 (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: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 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: 鈥淪prinkle of the blood,鈥 which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 讘讚诐 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 讚诇讬讻讗 砖讬注讜专 讟讘讬诇讛 诪注讬拽专讜 讻转讘 [专讞诪谞讗] 讘讚诐

And it was necessary for the Torah to write the term: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 as well as the term: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip.鈥 As, had the Merciful One written only: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip,鈥 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: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 to teach that there must be sufficient blood from the beginning.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讘讚诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪住驻讙 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讟讘诇

And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淚n the blood,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall dip,鈥 to teach that there must remain enough blood to dip his finger each time.

诪谉 讛讚诐 砖讘注谞讬谉 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讘讗爪讘注 诪住讬讬注 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讘讗爪讘注 驻住讜诇讬谉

The cited baraita states: The verse states: 鈥淪prinkle of the blood,鈥 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鈥檚 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鈥檚 finger after sprinkling is unfit for further sprinkling.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谉 讘专 专讘 讗讚讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 转诇诪讬讚讱 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 转谞讬谞讗 讛讬讛 诪讝讛 讜谞讬转讝讛 讛讝讗讛 诪讬讚讜 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讝讛 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讛讝讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖诇讗 讙诪专 诪诇讛讝讜转 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讙诪专 诇讛讝讜转 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 砖诇讗 讬爪转讛 讛讝讗讛 诪讬讚讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讬爪转讛 讛讝讗讛 诪讬讚讜 讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讙诪专 诪诇讛讝讜转 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讜 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 驻专讛 讙诪专 讗讬谉 诇讗 讙诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诪专 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讜 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 驻专讛 诇讗 讙诪专 诪拽谞讞 讗爪讘注讜

Abaye raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 讙诪专 诪拽谞讞 讬讚讜 讘讙讜驻讛 砖诇 驻专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖专祝 讗转 讛驻专讛 诇注讬谞讬讜 讗诇讗 讗爪讘注讜 讘诪讗讬 诪拽谞讞 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖驻转 诪讝专拽 讻讚讻转讬讘 讻驻讜专讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara asks: Granted, if he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood鈥 (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: 鈥淎toning bowls [keforei] of gold鈥 (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 岣llin 8b).

诪转谞讬壮 谞讬转讝 注诇 讛注讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜驻砖讟 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讛讚诐 讜讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讜专讗讜讬 诇讻讬讘讜住

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.

讗讞讚 讛讘讙讚 讜讗讞讚 讛砖拽 讜讗讞讚 讛注讜专 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 讜讛讻讬讘讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜砖讘讬专转 讻诇讬 讞专住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讜诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘讻诇讬 谞讞讜砖转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讞讟讗转 诪拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 注讜专 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 注诇讬讛 转讻讘住

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: 鈥淎nd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). I have derived only a garment; from where do I include an animal鈥檚 hide after it was flayed? The same verse states: 鈥淵ou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled,鈥 to include any item on which the blood sprayed.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 注讜专 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讜驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 诪讛 讘讙讚 讛专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

One might have thought that I would include a hide even before it was flayed. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淕arment.鈥 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.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讘讙讚 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讙讚 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖拽

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

Scroll To Top