Zevachim 93
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rami bar Hama asks Rav Chisda whether blood that splashes onto a garment already impure requires laundering. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua explains that the question hinges on whether laundering is unnecessary only when impurity and disqualification occur sequentially, or even when they occur simultaneously. Rav Chisda connects the issue to a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis regarding the status of mei chatat that became impure, as interpreted by Abaye. To clarify Abaye’s understanding, the Gemara presents a broader disagreement among Raba, Abaye, and Rava about the nature of the disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis.
A braita teaches that only blood fit for sprinkling requires laundering, excluding blood already disqualified. Rabbi Akiva rules that blood which had a moment of fitness and was later disqualified does require laundering, while Rabbi Shimon maintains that disqualified blood never requires it.
The Mishna rules that blood splashed from the neck of the animal, or from the altar’s corner or base, does not require laundering, nor does blood spilled on the floor and later gathered, since only blood received in a vessel and fit for sprinkling requires laundering. Two braitot are cited to demonstrate how these laws are derived from verses in the Torah. The Gemara further clarifies that the requirement of being “capable of sprinkling” excludes cases where less than the requisite measure was received in each vessel. Rava explains that this principle is rooted in a drasha on the verse in Vayikra 4:6. After presenting several drashot on the different words of that verse, the Gemara analyzes them both in relation to one another – explaining why each was necessary – and in relation to other statements.
The Mishna continues with blood splashed on the hide: before flaying it does not require laundering, but after flaying it does. Rabbi Elazar limits laundering to the place of the blood and only where the material is susceptible to impurity. A braita extends laundering obligations to garments, sackcloth, and hides, and specifies that laundering, breaking of earthenware vessels, and rinsing of copper vessels must all be performed in a sacred place. Laundering is a stringency unique to the sin offering compared to other kodshei kodashim.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Mindy and Eric Hecht in loving memory of Dr. Charles Feldman, z”l. “He would have loved to have been part of this learning community and is surely looking down on his many family members who learn the daf with much pride. He is missed every day.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in loving memory of her mother, Sara, aka Bubaleh, on her 7th yahrzeit. “Mom was a light in my life and in the lives of so many. Her warmth and loving nature would light up any place that she would be. Tehi zichra baruch – may her memory be blessed.”
Zevachim 93
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא מֵרַב חִסְדָּא: נִיתַּז עַל בֶּגֶד טָמֵא, מַהוּ? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִדְּקָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ הָכִי, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה – אֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
§ 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.
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲבָל בְּבַת אַחַת לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבָּנַן אַלִּיבָּא דְרַבָּה, וְכִדְקָא מְתָרֵיץ אַבָּיֵי.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ – מְטַהֲרִין, שֶׁהֲרֵי נִדָּה מַזִּין עָלֶיהָ.
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.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשִׁיטַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא רַבּוֹ אֲמָרָהּ, דְּאָמַר: הַעֲבָרַת כְּלִי עַל גַּבֵּי מָקוֹם טָמֵא – כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי.
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.
דִּתְנַן: הָיָה עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַתַּנּוּר וְשֶׁרֶץ בַּתַּנּוּר, וְהוֹשִׁיט יָדוֹ לַחַלּוֹן וְנָטַל אֶת הַלָּגִין וְהֶעֱבִירוֹ עַל פִּי תַנּוּר – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי – דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָאו כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי.
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.
וְאֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּהַזָּאָה שֶׁהֶעֱבִירָהּ עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס טָמֵא עַל גַּבֵּי מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב טָמֵא – שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה; שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁמְּטַמֵּא לְמַעְלָה כִּלְמַטָּה, אֶלָּא כְּזַיִת מִן הַמֵּת וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַמַּאֲהִילִין. לְאֵיתוֹיֵי אֶבֶן הַמְנוּגַּעַת!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – לָאו כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי; וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר גָּזְרִינַן שֶׁמָּא יָנוּחַ, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי לָא גָּזְרִינַן. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּהַזָּאָה – כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק נְפַק.
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.
וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבָּנַן בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּדָנִין טוּמְאָה קְדוּמָה מִטּוּמְאָה שֶׁבְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי –
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.
מָר סָבַר דָּנִין, וּמַר סָבַר אֵין דָּנִין.
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.
רָבָא אֲמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין דָּנִין;
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.
וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: הַזָּאָה צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר, וּמִצְטָרְפִין לְהַזָּאוֹת; וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: הַזָּאָה אֵין צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר.
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.
חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מִדָּמָהּ״ – מִדַּם כְּשֵׁירָה וְלֹא מִדַּם פְּסוּלָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה – דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, לֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה – אֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
§ 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.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, אֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? כְּתִיב ״אֹתָהּ״, וּכְתִיב ״מִדָּמָהּ״ – חַד לְהֵיכָא דְּהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
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.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – ״אֹתָהּ״ פְּרָט לִתְרוּמָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵין טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תְּרוּמָה.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ נִיתַּז מִן הַצַּוָּאר עַל הַבֶּגֶד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִן הַקֶּרֶן וּמִן הַיְסוֹד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ – אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא דָּם שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי, וְרָאוּי לְהַזָּאָה.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל נִיתַּז מִן הַצַּוָּאר עַל הַבֶּגֶד – יְהֵא טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לָךְ אֶלָּא בְּרָאוּי לְהַזָּאָה. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: יָכוֹל נִיתַּז מִן הַקֶּרֶן וּמִן הַיְסוֹד יְהֵא טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁכְּבָר הוּזָּה.
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.
נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה כּוּ׳.
§ 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.
הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס – לְפִי שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא דָּם שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי וְרָאוּי לְהַזָּיָיה.
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.
רָאוּי לְהַזָּאָה – לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי קִיבֵּל פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה וּפָחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה.
§ 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.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בַּר שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: קִידֵּשׁ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה וּפָחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה – לֹא קִידֵּשׁ.
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.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּדָם מַהוּ? הִלְכְתָא הִיא, וּמֵהִלְכְתָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן;
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?
אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא – דִּכְתִיב ״וְטָבַל בַּמַּיִם״, הָכָא נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״וְטָבַל בַּדָּם״.
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?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בְּדָם – לֹא קִידֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא: ״וְטָבַל״ – וְלֹא מְסַפֵּג. ״בַּדָּם״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדָּם שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. ״מִן הַדָּם״ – מִן הַדָּם שֶׁבָּעִנְיָן.
§ 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.
וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״בַּדָּם״; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָבַל״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אַף עַל פִּי דְּלֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ; כְּתַב [רַחֲמָנָא] ״בַּדָּם״.
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.
וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּדָּם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מְסַפֵּג; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָבַל״.
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.
מִן הַדָּם שֶׁבְּעִנְיָן – לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: לְמַעוֹטֵי שִׁירַיִים שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע. מְסַיַּיע לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שִׁירַיִים שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע – פְּסוּלִין.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא לְרַב: אָמַר תַּלְמִידְךָ, אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם, תְּנֵינָא: הָיָה מַזֶּה וְנִיתְּזָה הַזָּאָה מִיָּדוֹ – עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִזָּה, טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִשֶּׁהִזָּה, אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
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.
מַאי, לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִשֶּׁגָּמַר לְהַזּוֹת – אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? לָא; הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצְתָה הַזָּאָה מִיָּדוֹ – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִשֶּׁיָּצְתָה הַזָּאָה מִיָּדוֹ – אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
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.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת – מְקַנֵּחַ יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. גָּמַר אִין, לֹא גָּמַר לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּמַר – מְקַנֵּחַ יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה, לֹא גָּמַר – מְקַנֵּחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא גָּמַר – מְקַנֵּחַ יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂרַף אֶת הַפָּרָה לְעֵינָיו״. אֶלָּא אֶצְבָּעוֹ – בְּמַאי מְקַנֵּחַ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׂפַת מִזְרָק, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב״.
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).
מַתְנִי׳ נִיתַּז עַל הָעוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּפְשַׁט – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט; אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא מְקוֹם הַדָּם, וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, וְרָאוּי לְכִיבּוּס.
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.
אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק וְאֶחָד הָעוֹר – טְעוּנִין כִּיבּוּס; וְהַכִּיבּוּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וּשְׁבִירַת כְּלִי חֶרֶס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחוֹשֶׁת בִּמְקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּחַטָּאת מִקׇּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת עוֹר מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס״.
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.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ – מָה בֶּגֶד הָרָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, אַף כֹּל הָרָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שַׂק
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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Raanana, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Ontario, Canada
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Zevachim 93
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
Β§ In a related matter, Rami bar αΈ€ama asked of Rav αΈ€isda: 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 αΈ€ama 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.
ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
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 αΈ€isda said to Rami bar αΈ€ama: 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ.
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 Elazarβs opinion is in opposition to that of the Rabbis.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ.
That is Rabbi Akivaβs 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 ovenβs 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ; Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ·Χͺ!
And Abaye raised an objection to Rabbaβs 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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Φ°Χ€Φ·Χ§ Χ Φ°Χ€Φ·Χ§.
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 personβs hand, the person cannot leave it to rest upon an impure item.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β
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.
ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ.
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 αΈ€isdaβs answer to Rami bar Hama is that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, if the impurity occurs in the moment that the sin offeringβs 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.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ;
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ; ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
Β§ 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: βAnd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garmentβ (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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨.
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: βEvery male among the priests may eat itβ (Leviticus 6:22), and only it. And it is written earlier in that same section: βOf its bloodβ (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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β Χ΄ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva interpret these verses? From the term βof its bloodβ he derives that the offering that has no period of fitness is excluded. The exclusion indicated by the word βitβ 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 Akivaβs 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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ° Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
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: βOn which it shall be sprinkledβ (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: βOn which it shall be sprinkled,β excluding that blood that was already sprinkled.
Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ° Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ° Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ β ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ.
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.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sanctification of water of purification, Rabbi αΈ€alafta 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.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ;
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 αΈ€alaftaβs 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?
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄.
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: βAnd dip it in the waterβ (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: βAnd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the bloodβ (Leviticus 4:6). Does this prove that from the outset there must be sufficient blood for sprinkling?
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΉΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧ. Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉ. Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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: βAnd the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the bloodβ (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: βIn the blood,β 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: βSprinkle of the blood,β which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ [Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ] Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄.
And it was necessary for the Torah to write the term: βIn the blood,β as well as the term: βAnd the priest shall dip.β As, had the Merciful One written only: βAnd the priest shall dip,β 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: βIn the blood,β to teach that there must be sufficient blood from the beginning.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΧ΄.
And if the Merciful One had written only: βIn the blood,β 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: βAnd the priest shall dip,β to teach that there must remain enough blood to dip his finger each time.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’. ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ’ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The cited baraita states: The verse states: βSprinkle of the blood,β 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 priestβs 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 priestβs finger after sprinkling is unfit for further sprinkling.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΈ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ β Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rav, i.e., Rava: Your student says that Rav Amram says: We already learn a baraita opposing Rabbi Elazarβs 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘? ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉ.
Abaye raised an objection to Rabbi Elazarβs 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.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨Φ·Χ£ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΧΧ΄. ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΅ΦΌΧΦ·? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ€Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ§, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄.
The Gemara asks: Granted, if he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer, as it is stated: βAnd the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its bloodβ (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: βAtoning bowls [keforei] of goldβ (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 αΈ€ullin 8b).
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ; ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘; ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ. ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ‘Χ΄.
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: βAnd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garmentβ (Leviticus 6:20). I have derived only a garment; from where do I include an animalβs hide after it was flayed? The same verse states: βYou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled,β to include any item on which the blood sprayed.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
One might have thought that I would include a hide even before it was flayed. To counter this, the verse states: βGarment.β 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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©Φ·ΧΧ§
Rabbi Elazar holds that, even after it is flayed, the hide does not require laundering. In interpreting the verse, he says: The verse states: βGarment,β and from this I have derived only a garment; from where do I include sackcloth
