Zevachim 94
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara examines the debate between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda regarding whether leather garments stained with blood from a sin offering require laundering. A braita cites verses in the Torah as the source for each position, with the disagreement hinging on how to interpret the term “beged.” Rabbi Yehuda understands “beged” to include any material potentially capable of receiving impurity, while according to Rabbi Elazar it includes sackcloth and other types of clothing that are actually susceptible to impurity. Abaye and Rava identify three practical differences that emerge from their interpretations.
Another braita establishes that only the specific area of a garment where blood lands requires laundering, not the entire garment.
The Gemara then derives from the Mishna that hides are subject to laundering, but cites a conflicting source related to Shabbat observance, which rules that rinsing a hide with water is not considered laundering. Abaye resolves the contradiction by attributing one view to the Rabbis and the other to “others,” who include hides in laundering. Rava challenges this, citing verses that explicitly mention leather, and concludes that the distinction lies between soft and hard hides. After raising two difficulties with his own explanation, Rava proposes a third approach: differentiating between scrubbing, which constitutes laundering, and merely pouring or soaking with water, which does not.
The Gemara then cites a braita deriving from verses that laundering, breaking earthenware vessels, and rinsing copper vessels must all be performed in the Azara. The Mishna rules that laundering is the only stringency unique to the sin offering compared to other offerings, though the Gemara questions this in light of other possible stringencies.
The Mishna further teaches that if a garment with blood, an earthenware vessel, or a copper vessel in which meat was cooked leaves the Azara and becomes impure, the impurity must first be removed – by tearing, making a hole, or otherwise invalidating the vessel – and then the item is returned to the Azara to be laundered, broken, or rinsed. Ravina challenges the ruling that an impure garment is torn outside and then laundered inside: if tearing removes its status as a garment, how can the obligation to launder be fulfilled? The Gemara clarifies that the case refers to tearing along the length without splitting it into two pieces, which is sufficient to remove impurity while still leaving it with the status of a garment for laundering.
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Zevachim 94
וְכׇל מִינֵי בְגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹר מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ – מָה בֶּגֶד דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.
and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.” One might have thought that I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed. That verse states: “Garment,” to teach that just as a garment is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity as is, so too any comparable item that is a ready utensil and therefore susceptible to impurity must be laundered. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar holds that merely flaying a hide is insufficient to render it an item that must be laundered.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַטְלֵית פְּחוּתָה מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar? Is there an item that is fit to become ritually impure, but is not actually susceptible to impurity? Abaye said: A patch of cloth less than three by three fingerbreadths presents a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this patch of cloth is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants, he can intend it for a specific use, as in patching his garment. According to the one who says that only an object already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this patch, in any event, is not yet susceptible to impurity, so it does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: בֶּגֶד שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְצוּרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְמַחְשַׁבְתֵּיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
Rava said: A garment upon which an individual initially intended to place an image constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. Since the garment was initially intended to have an adornment, the garment is considered incomplete and not yet susceptible to impurity until the image is added. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure requires laundering, this garment is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants to, he can void his intention to add the image, and the garment will be automatically susceptible to impurity. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity requires laundering, now, at least, this garment is not susceptible to impurity and does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: עוּצְבָּא דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלַהּ לְקַצְּעָהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רְאוּיָה; מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא לָאו מְקַבְּלָה טוּמְאָה עַד דִּמְקַצַּע לַהּ. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוּצְבָּא שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְקַצְּעָהּ – טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיְּקַצְּעֶנָּה.
According to a different version, Rava said: An unfinished hide [utzeva] that one intended to trim in a precise manner constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment-like item fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this hide must be laundered, since it is also fit to be susceptible to impurity if he voids his intention. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this hide does not require laundering since it is not susceptible to impurity until he trims it. This explanation may be corroborated, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An unfinished hide that one intended to trim is ritually pure until he trims it.
אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל נִתַּז עַל מִקְצָת בֶּגֶד – יְהֵא כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דָּם בִּלְבַד.
§ The mishna teaches: A garment requires laundering only in the place that the blood was sprayed; but the entire garment does not require laundering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught: The verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.” One might have thought that even if the blood sprayed only on part of a garment, the entire garment should require laundering. To counter this, the same verse states: “That on which it shall be sprinkled.” This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.
דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה [וְכוּ׳]. סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The mishna also teaches: A garment must be laundered only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering. The Gemara observes: Evidently, the unattributed portion of the mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. This statement is unlike the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that only an item that is presently susceptible to impurity requires laundering.
רָאוּי לְכִיבּוּס. לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּלִי, דְּבַר גְּרִידָה הוּא.
The mishna also teaches: Only an item fit for laundering must be laundered. The Gemara observes: This qualification serves to exclude a vessel from the requirement of laundering, as it is suitable for scraping blood off of it. Laundering is necessary only for material or fabric into which blood is absorbed.
אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּעוֹר בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָיְתָה עָלָיו לַשְׁלֶשֶׁת – מְקַנְּחָהּ בִּסְמַרְטוּט. הָיְתָה עַל שֶׁל עוֹר – נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה!
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these must be laundered. Apparently, that is to say that a hide, i.e., leather, is suitable for laundering. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that assumption and a mishna that discusses laundering on Shabbat (Shabbat 142b): If there were bird droppings [lishleshet] on the cushion, one wipes it with a dry rag, but one may not rinse it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If it was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filthy substance dissolves. Evidently, cleaning leather with water is not considered laundering.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבָּנַן הָא אֲחֵרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק – מְכַבְּסוֹ, הַכְּלִי וְהָעוֹר – מְגָרְרוֹ. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר – מְכַבְּסוֹ, וְהַכְּלִי – מְגָרְרוֹ.
Abaye said: This contradiction is not difficult. That mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of others. As it is taught in a baraita about the blood of a sin offering: If blood sprays onto a garment or onto sackcloth, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel or onto leather, he scrapes it off. Others say: If it sprays onto a garment, or onto sackcloth, or onto leather, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel, he scrapes it off. According to this baraita, the Rabbis hold that laundering is not applicable to leather, and the opinion attributed to: Others say, holds that it is applicable.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא? כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this baraita.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר, עוֹר לָאו בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהַבֶּגֶד אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כׇל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא וּמַתְנִיתִין – בְּרַכִּין, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּקָשִׁין.
§ Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn’t it written with regard to leprosy: “And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash” (Leviticus 13:58)? Rather, Rava said: The verse that speaks of leprosy and the mishna that speaks of the sin offering are ruling with regard to soft leather, which is considered subject to laundering. In the baraita, when the Rabbis and the others disagree, it is with regard to an item that is made of hard leather; as the Rabbis hold that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
וְהָאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא! בְּקָשִׁין, וּכְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara challenges Rava’s explanation: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? Since shoes are normally made of soft leather, according to Rava’s explanation, this should have constituted laundering on Shabbat. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: It was a case of hard leather shoes, and Rav acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; נֵיקוּ נֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא דְּכִי כְתִיבָן בְּרַכִּין כְּתִיבָן?! מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן בִּכְלֵי אֶכְּסָלְגְיָא הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נִיבְעֵי כִּיבּוּס?
Rava then said: That which I said, that the verse about leprosy relates to soft leather, is not correct. Shall we stand and say of the verse that when leather articles are written, it is only of soft leather articles that the Torah writes? A verse cannot be constrained in such a manner. Are we not also dealing with articles of hard leather [aksilgiyya] that come from overseas, and yet the Merciful One says in the verse that they require laundering?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: צָרַעַת – כֵּיוָן דְּמִגּוּפֵיהּ קָא פָרְחָה, מְחַלְחֲלָא לֵיהּ וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לַהּ רַךְ. אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי:
Rather, Rava said: Although the verse also relates to hard leather, this does not mean that all opinions must agree that laundering is always applicable to hard leather. The hard leather in the verse is an exception, because in the case of leprosy, since leprosy sprouts from within the garment itself, it loosens it and renders it soft so that its halakhic status is that of soft leather. Rava said: Nevertheless, if something poses a difficulty for me, according to my opinion that everyone agrees that the halakha with regard to laundering applies to soft leather, this is what poses a difficulty for me:
כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת – דְּרַכִּין נִינְהוּ, וּתְנַן: הָיְתָה שֶׁל עוֹר נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל כִּיבּוּס דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כִּיסְכּוּס, לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּס.
Cushions and blankets that are of soft leather, and for which the halakha with regard to laundering should be relevant, and yet we learned about them in the mishna (Shabbat 142b): If the filth was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filth dissolves, which indicates that the halakha with regard to laundering is not applicable even to soft leather. Rather, Rava said: With regard to any laundering that does not include rubbing, it is not considered laundering. Consequently, one may apply water to a soft leather cushion, but soft leather remains subject to laundering, so long as there is rubbing.
וְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּבּוּס לָא – אִי בְּרַכִּין וּכְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, אִי בְּקָשִׁין וְכַאֲחֵרִים.
And that statement that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, may be explained accordingly. With regard to placing water on leather, yes, that is permitted, but with regard to laundering, which includes rubbing, it is not permitted. This may be explained as follows: If Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of hard leather shoes, the distinction between placing and rubbing accords with the opinion of the others, who hold that the requirement of laundering sprayed blood applies even to hard leather.
אִי הָכִי, בֶּגֶד נָמֵי! בֶּגֶד – שְׁרִיָּיתוֹ זֶהוּ כִּיבּוּסוֹ.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that placing water upon something is not considered laundering so long as one does not also rub the item, then with regard to a non-leather garment as well, one should be allowed to place water upon it on Shabbat. Why does the cited mishna state that one may wipe it only with a dry rag? The Gemara answers: With regard to a garment, its soaking is its laundering, and merely placing water on it is forbidden.
רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: זָרַק סוּדָר לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. זָרַק פִּשְׁתָּן לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁלָמָא סוּדָר – עָבֵיד כִּיבּוּס; אֶלָּא זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning; as Rava says: If one cast a cloth into water on Shabbat, he is liable for laundering on Shabbat, as it is made of fabric like any garment; and if one cast flax seeds into water, he too is liable. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if he casts a cloth into water, he performs laundering; but with regard to flaxseed, what is the reason that one may not cast it into water on Shabbat?
וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִקַדַּח – אִי הָכִי, חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי נָמֵי! הָנָךְ אִית לְהוּ רִירֵי. אִי הָכִי, שְׁלָחִים נָמֵי! הָתָם קָעָבֵיד לִישָׁה.
And if you would say that it is prohibited because it sprouts in the water and constitutes the prohibited act of planting, if so, with regard to wheat and barley, it should also be forbidden to place them into water. The Gemara explains: Casting the flax into the water is not prohibited because of planting but because these flax seeds have discharges when soaked. If so, with regard to hides, it should also be prohibited to place them into water, because they too produce discharges in water. The Gemara answers: There, with regard to flaxseed, it is prohibited because it effects kneading, as the discharges cause the seeds to combine together, which is not true of hides.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מוּתָּר לְכַבֵּס מִנְעָל בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵי בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּיבּוּס לָא! הֲדַר אוֹקֵי רָבָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם – טָעוּת הֵם בְּיָדִי; בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ: שִׁכְשׁוּךְ מוּתָּר, כִּיבּוּס אָסוּר.
The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes? Evidently, placing water upon leather, yes, that is permitted, but laundering, which includes rubbing, is not permitted. Rava went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and taught in public: The statements that I said before you earlier are my error. Truly, the Sages said like this: Placing water upon shoes is permitted, but laundering them is prohibited.
הַכִּיבּוּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ״. שְׁבִירַת כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר״. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה, וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם״.
§ The mishna teaches: The laundering must be performed in a sacred place, and the breaking of an earthenware vessel must be performed in a sacred place, and the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be performed in a sacred place. From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: Concerning a garment on which blood was sprayed, the verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). From where is the halakha with regard to the breaking of an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The subsequent verse states: “And the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken” (Leviticus 6:21). From where is the halakha with regard to the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The verse states immediately thereafter: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.”
זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּחַטָּאת כּוּ׳. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָאִיכָּא שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים! בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to this matter, a stringency applies to a sin offering more than it applies to offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara asks: And are there no more halakhot specific to a sin offering? But there is this halakha: That its blood enters the innermost sanctum to be sprinkled. The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with external sin offerings, and this halakha applies only to internal sin offerings.
שֶׁאִם נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ (לִפְנַי וְ)לִפְנִים – פְּסוּלָה! כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל לְכַפֵּר – פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it becomes disqualified. The Gemara explains: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Every offering’s blood, not only that of a sin offering, that enters the Sanctuary to atone becomes disqualified; therefore, this is not a halakha specific to a sin offering.
שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת! בְּחַטָּאת דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha that external sin offerings atone for those who are liable to receive excision, karet, through unintentional sins. The Gemara explains: The mishna includes an offering that does not have that halakha, as its principles also apply to a sin offering brought for hearing the voice, i.e., for falsely taking an oath that one is unable to testify in another’s case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.
שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת! כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים טְעוּנִין אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that the blood of a sin offering requires four placements on the altar, unlike other offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This mishna is composed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that all blood of offerings requires four placements, one upon each of the four corners of the altar; accordingly, this is not a halakha limited to the sin offering.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָאִיכָּא קֶרֶן! הָאִיכָּא אֶצְבַּע! הָאִיכָּא חוּדָּהּ! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי תְּלָתָא חוּמְרֵי נָקֵט.
The Gemara asks: And even according to your reasoning, can it be said that there is only one halakha that applies to a sin offering but does not apply to other offerings? Isn’t there the requirement to place a sin offering’s blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isn’t there the requirement that a priest place a sin offering’s blood on the altar with his finger? Isn’t there the requirement to place it on the edge of the altar? Therefore, it should not be assumed that this is the only halakha unique to a sin offering, but rather that the mishna simply cited one of two or three stringencies.
מַתְנִי׳ בֶּגֶד שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – קוֹרְעוֹ, נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בִּמְקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נוֹקְבוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
MISHNA: With regard to a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering was sprayed that went outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard, before being laundered, the garment reenters the courtyard and one launders it in a sacred place. If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. With regard to an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard and one breaks it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one punctures the vessel to render it ritually pure, and one enters the courtyard with it and breaks it in a sacred place.
כְּלִי נְחֹשֶׁת שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – פּוֹחֲתוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
With regard to a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard, and one scours it and rinses it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure and enters the courtyard with it and scours and rinses it in a sacred place.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: קוֹרְעוֹ?! ״בֶּגֶד״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו בֶּגֶד הוּא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. Ravina objects to this: How can the mishna say that one tears it? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must launder “a garment” (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.
דִּמְשַׁיַּיר בֵּיהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר הָוֵי!
The Gemara answers: The mishna describes a scenario when he leaves untorn a fragment of the garment that is size enough for a small cloth. Is that so? If he leaves such a portion intact, is he still permitted to bring the garment back into the courtyard? But doesn’t Rav Huna say: The Sages taught that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, loses its impurity only when one did not leave of it enough for a small cloth, but if he left enough of it untorn for a small cloth, it is considered a joining of the pieces, and the garment remains ritually impure. Accordingly, leaving a piece that size would not serve any purpose with regard to ritual impurity.
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.
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
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 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
Tel Aviv, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Zevachim 94
וְכׇל מִינֵי בְגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹר מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ – מָה בֶּגֶד דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.
and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.” One might have thought that I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed. That verse states: “Garment,” to teach that just as a garment is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity as is, so too any comparable item that is a ready utensil and therefore susceptible to impurity must be laundered. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar holds that merely flaying a hide is insufficient to render it an item that must be laundered.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַטְלֵית פְּחוּתָה מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar? Is there an item that is fit to become ritually impure, but is not actually susceptible to impurity? Abaye said: A patch of cloth less than three by three fingerbreadths presents a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this patch of cloth is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants, he can intend it for a specific use, as in patching his garment. According to the one who says that only an object already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this patch, in any event, is not yet susceptible to impurity, so it does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: בֶּגֶד שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְצוּרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְמַחְשַׁבְתֵּיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
Rava said: A garment upon which an individual initially intended to place an image constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. Since the garment was initially intended to have an adornment, the garment is considered incomplete and not yet susceptible to impurity until the image is added. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure requires laundering, this garment is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants to, he can void his intention to add the image, and the garment will be automatically susceptible to impurity. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity requires laundering, now, at least, this garment is not susceptible to impurity and does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: עוּצְבָּא דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלַהּ לְקַצְּעָהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רְאוּיָה; מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא לָאו מְקַבְּלָה טוּמְאָה עַד דִּמְקַצַּע לַהּ. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוּצְבָּא שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְקַצְּעָהּ – טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיְּקַצְּעֶנָּה.
According to a different version, Rava said: An unfinished hide [utzeva] that one intended to trim in a precise manner constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment-like item fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this hide must be laundered, since it is also fit to be susceptible to impurity if he voids his intention. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this hide does not require laundering since it is not susceptible to impurity until he trims it. This explanation may be corroborated, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An unfinished hide that one intended to trim is ritually pure until he trims it.
אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל נִתַּז עַל מִקְצָת בֶּגֶד – יְהֵא כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דָּם בִּלְבַד.
§ The mishna teaches: A garment requires laundering only in the place that the blood was sprayed; but the entire garment does not require laundering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught: The verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.” One might have thought that even if the blood sprayed only on part of a garment, the entire garment should require laundering. To counter this, the same verse states: “That on which it shall be sprinkled.” This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.
דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה [וְכוּ׳]. סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The mishna also teaches: A garment must be laundered only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering. The Gemara observes: Evidently, the unattributed portion of the mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. This statement is unlike the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that only an item that is presently susceptible to impurity requires laundering.
רָאוּי לְכִיבּוּס. לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּלִי, דְּבַר גְּרִידָה הוּא.
The mishna also teaches: Only an item fit for laundering must be laundered. The Gemara observes: This qualification serves to exclude a vessel from the requirement of laundering, as it is suitable for scraping blood off of it. Laundering is necessary only for material or fabric into which blood is absorbed.
אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּעוֹר בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָיְתָה עָלָיו לַשְׁלֶשֶׁת – מְקַנְּחָהּ בִּסְמַרְטוּט. הָיְתָה עַל שֶׁל עוֹר – נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה!
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these must be laundered. Apparently, that is to say that a hide, i.e., leather, is suitable for laundering. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that assumption and a mishna that discusses laundering on Shabbat (Shabbat 142b): If there were bird droppings [lishleshet] on the cushion, one wipes it with a dry rag, but one may not rinse it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If it was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filthy substance dissolves. Evidently, cleaning leather with water is not considered laundering.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבָּנַן הָא אֲחֵרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק – מְכַבְּסוֹ, הַכְּלִי וְהָעוֹר – מְגָרְרוֹ. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר – מְכַבְּסוֹ, וְהַכְּלִי – מְגָרְרוֹ.
Abaye said: This contradiction is not difficult. That mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of others. As it is taught in a baraita about the blood of a sin offering: If blood sprays onto a garment or onto sackcloth, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel or onto leather, he scrapes it off. Others say: If it sprays onto a garment, or onto sackcloth, or onto leather, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel, he scrapes it off. According to this baraita, the Rabbis hold that laundering is not applicable to leather, and the opinion attributed to: Others say, holds that it is applicable.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא? כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this baraita.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר, עוֹר לָאו בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהַבֶּגֶד אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כׇל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא וּמַתְנִיתִין – בְּרַכִּין, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּקָשִׁין.
§ Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn’t it written with regard to leprosy: “And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash” (Leviticus 13:58)? Rather, Rava said: The verse that speaks of leprosy and the mishna that speaks of the sin offering are ruling with regard to soft leather, which is considered subject to laundering. In the baraita, when the Rabbis and the others disagree, it is with regard to an item that is made of hard leather; as the Rabbis hold that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
וְהָאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא! בְּקָשִׁין, וּכְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara challenges Rava’s explanation: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? Since shoes are normally made of soft leather, according to Rava’s explanation, this should have constituted laundering on Shabbat. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: It was a case of hard leather shoes, and Rav acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; נֵיקוּ נֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא דְּכִי כְתִיבָן בְּרַכִּין כְּתִיבָן?! מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן בִּכְלֵי אֶכְּסָלְגְיָא הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נִיבְעֵי כִּיבּוּס?
Rava then said: That which I said, that the verse about leprosy relates to soft leather, is not correct. Shall we stand and say of the verse that when leather articles are written, it is only of soft leather articles that the Torah writes? A verse cannot be constrained in such a manner. Are we not also dealing with articles of hard leather [aksilgiyya] that come from overseas, and yet the Merciful One says in the verse that they require laundering?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: צָרַעַת – כֵּיוָן דְּמִגּוּפֵיהּ קָא פָרְחָה, מְחַלְחֲלָא לֵיהּ וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לַהּ רַךְ. אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי:
Rather, Rava said: Although the verse also relates to hard leather, this does not mean that all opinions must agree that laundering is always applicable to hard leather. The hard leather in the verse is an exception, because in the case of leprosy, since leprosy sprouts from within the garment itself, it loosens it and renders it soft so that its halakhic status is that of soft leather. Rava said: Nevertheless, if something poses a difficulty for me, according to my opinion that everyone agrees that the halakha with regard to laundering applies to soft leather, this is what poses a difficulty for me:
כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת – דְּרַכִּין נִינְהוּ, וּתְנַן: הָיְתָה שֶׁל עוֹר נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל כִּיבּוּס דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כִּיסְכּוּס, לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּס.
Cushions and blankets that are of soft leather, and for which the halakha with regard to laundering should be relevant, and yet we learned about them in the mishna (Shabbat 142b): If the filth was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filth dissolves, which indicates that the halakha with regard to laundering is not applicable even to soft leather. Rather, Rava said: With regard to any laundering that does not include rubbing, it is not considered laundering. Consequently, one may apply water to a soft leather cushion, but soft leather remains subject to laundering, so long as there is rubbing.
וְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּבּוּס לָא – אִי בְּרַכִּין וּכְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, אִי בְּקָשִׁין וְכַאֲחֵרִים.
And that statement that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, may be explained accordingly. With regard to placing water on leather, yes, that is permitted, but with regard to laundering, which includes rubbing, it is not permitted. This may be explained as follows: If Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of hard leather shoes, the distinction between placing and rubbing accords with the opinion of the others, who hold that the requirement of laundering sprayed blood applies even to hard leather.
אִי הָכִי, בֶּגֶד נָמֵי! בֶּגֶד – שְׁרִיָּיתוֹ זֶהוּ כִּיבּוּסוֹ.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that placing water upon something is not considered laundering so long as one does not also rub the item, then with regard to a non-leather garment as well, one should be allowed to place water upon it on Shabbat. Why does the cited mishna state that one may wipe it only with a dry rag? The Gemara answers: With regard to a garment, its soaking is its laundering, and merely placing water on it is forbidden.
רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: זָרַק סוּדָר לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. זָרַק פִּשְׁתָּן לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁלָמָא סוּדָר – עָבֵיד כִּיבּוּס; אֶלָּא זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning; as Rava says: If one cast a cloth into water on Shabbat, he is liable for laundering on Shabbat, as it is made of fabric like any garment; and if one cast flax seeds into water, he too is liable. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if he casts a cloth into water, he performs laundering; but with regard to flaxseed, what is the reason that one may not cast it into water on Shabbat?
וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִקַדַּח – אִי הָכִי, חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי נָמֵי! הָנָךְ אִית לְהוּ רִירֵי. אִי הָכִי, שְׁלָחִים נָמֵי! הָתָם קָעָבֵיד לִישָׁה.
And if you would say that it is prohibited because it sprouts in the water and constitutes the prohibited act of planting, if so, with regard to wheat and barley, it should also be forbidden to place them into water. The Gemara explains: Casting the flax into the water is not prohibited because of planting but because these flax seeds have discharges when soaked. If so, with regard to hides, it should also be prohibited to place them into water, because they too produce discharges in water. The Gemara answers: There, with regard to flaxseed, it is prohibited because it effects kneading, as the discharges cause the seeds to combine together, which is not true of hides.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מוּתָּר לְכַבֵּס מִנְעָל בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵי בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּיבּוּס לָא! הֲדַר אוֹקֵי רָבָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם – טָעוּת הֵם בְּיָדִי; בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ: שִׁכְשׁוּךְ מוּתָּר, כִּיבּוּס אָסוּר.
The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes? Evidently, placing water upon leather, yes, that is permitted, but laundering, which includes rubbing, is not permitted. Rava went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and taught in public: The statements that I said before you earlier are my error. Truly, the Sages said like this: Placing water upon shoes is permitted, but laundering them is prohibited.
הַכִּיבּוּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ״. שְׁבִירַת כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר״. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה, וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם״.
§ The mishna teaches: The laundering must be performed in a sacred place, and the breaking of an earthenware vessel must be performed in a sacred place, and the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be performed in a sacred place. From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: Concerning a garment on which blood was sprayed, the verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). From where is the halakha with regard to the breaking of an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The subsequent verse states: “And the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken” (Leviticus 6:21). From where is the halakha with regard to the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The verse states immediately thereafter: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.”
זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּחַטָּאת כּוּ׳. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָאִיכָּא שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים! בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to this matter, a stringency applies to a sin offering more than it applies to offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara asks: And are there no more halakhot specific to a sin offering? But there is this halakha: That its blood enters the innermost sanctum to be sprinkled. The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with external sin offerings, and this halakha applies only to internal sin offerings.
שֶׁאִם נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ (לִפְנַי וְ)לִפְנִים – פְּסוּלָה! כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל לְכַפֵּר – פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it becomes disqualified. The Gemara explains: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Every offering’s blood, not only that of a sin offering, that enters the Sanctuary to atone becomes disqualified; therefore, this is not a halakha specific to a sin offering.
שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת! בְּחַטָּאת דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha that external sin offerings atone for those who are liable to receive excision, karet, through unintentional sins. The Gemara explains: The mishna includes an offering that does not have that halakha, as its principles also apply to a sin offering brought for hearing the voice, i.e., for falsely taking an oath that one is unable to testify in another’s case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.
שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת! כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים טְעוּנִין אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that the blood of a sin offering requires four placements on the altar, unlike other offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This mishna is composed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that all blood of offerings requires four placements, one upon each of the four corners of the altar; accordingly, this is not a halakha limited to the sin offering.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָאִיכָּא קֶרֶן! הָאִיכָּא אֶצְבַּע! הָאִיכָּא חוּדָּהּ! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי תְּלָתָא חוּמְרֵי נָקֵט.
The Gemara asks: And even according to your reasoning, can it be said that there is only one halakha that applies to a sin offering but does not apply to other offerings? Isn’t there the requirement to place a sin offering’s blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isn’t there the requirement that a priest place a sin offering’s blood on the altar with his finger? Isn’t there the requirement to place it on the edge of the altar? Therefore, it should not be assumed that this is the only halakha unique to a sin offering, but rather that the mishna simply cited one of two or three stringencies.
מַתְנִי׳ בֶּגֶד שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – קוֹרְעוֹ, נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בִּמְקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נוֹקְבוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
MISHNA: With regard to a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering was sprayed that went outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard, before being laundered, the garment reenters the courtyard and one launders it in a sacred place. If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. With regard to an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard and one breaks it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one punctures the vessel to render it ritually pure, and one enters the courtyard with it and breaks it in a sacred place.
כְּלִי נְחֹשֶׁת שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – פּוֹחֲתוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
With regard to a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard, and one scours it and rinses it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure and enters the courtyard with it and scours and rinses it in a sacred place.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: קוֹרְעוֹ?! ״בֶּגֶד״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו בֶּגֶד הוּא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. Ravina objects to this: How can the mishna say that one tears it? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must launder “a garment” (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.
דִּמְשַׁיַּיר בֵּיהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר הָוֵי!
The Gemara answers: The mishna describes a scenario when he leaves untorn a fragment of the garment that is size enough for a small cloth. Is that so? If he leaves such a portion intact, is he still permitted to bring the garment back into the courtyard? But doesn’t Rav Huna say: The Sages taught that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, loses its impurity only when one did not leave of it enough for a small cloth, but if he left enough of it untorn for a small cloth, it is considered a joining of the pieces, and the garment remains ritually impure. Accordingly, leaving a piece that size would not serve any purpose with regard to ritual impurity.
