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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 16, 2018 | 讚壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

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

Zevachim 94

Study Guide Zevachim 94. What types of materials need laundering if blood from the sin offering聽spills on them?


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

讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘讙讚讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 注诇讬讛 转讻讘住 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 注讜专 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 诪讛 讘讙讚 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.鈥 One might have thought that I include an animal鈥檚 hide after it was flayed. That verse states: 鈥淕arment,鈥 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讟诇讬转 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗讜 讘转 拽讘讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讙讚 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诇爪讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诇诪讞砖讘转讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗讜 讘转 拽讘讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注讜爪讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讛 诇拽爪注讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讘诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 讚诪拽爪注 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 注讜爪讘讗 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛 诇拽爪注讛 讟讛讜专讛 注讚 砖讬拽爪讬注谞讛

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.

讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 谞转讝 注诇 诪拽爪转 讘讙讚 讬讛讗 讻诇 讛讘讙讚 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讚诐 讘诇讘讚

搂 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: 鈥淎nd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.鈥 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: 鈥淭hat on which it shall be sprinkled.鈥 This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.

讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 [讜讻讜壮] 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讗讜讬 诇讻讬讘讜住 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻诇讬 讚讘专 讙专讬讚讛 讛讜讗

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.

讗讞讚 讛讘讙讚 讜讗讞讚 讛砖拽 讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讜专 讘专 讻讬讘讜住 讛讜讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖诇砖转 诪拽谞讞讛 讘住诪专讟讜讟 讛讬转讛 注诇 砖诇 注讜专 谞讜转谉 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 注讚 砖转讻诇讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 诪讻讘住讜 讛讻诇讬 讜讛注讜专 诪讙专专讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 讜讛注讜专 诪讻讘住讜 讜讛讻诇讬 诪讙专专讜

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讜专 诇讗讜 讘专 讻讬讘讜住 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讙讚 讗讜 讛砖转讬 讗讜 讛注专讘 讗讜 讻诇 讻诇讬 讛注讜专 讗砖专 转讻讘住 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽专讗 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘专讻讬谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽砖讬谉

Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to leprosy: 鈥淎nd the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash鈥 (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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讘拽砖讬谉 讜讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges Rava鈥檚 explanation: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya 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鈥檚 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.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讬拽讜 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘谉 讘专讻讬谉 讻转讬讘谉 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻诇讬 讗讻住诇讙讬讗 讛讘讗讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬讘注讬 讻讬讘讜住

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 爪专注转 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讙讜驻讬讛 拽讗 驻专讞讛 诪讞诇讞诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讛 专讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬

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:

讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 讚专讻讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜转谞谉 讛讬转讛 砖诇 注讜专 谞讜转谉 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 注讚 砖转讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讻讬讘讜住 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻讬住讻讜住 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜住

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.

讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬讛 讘诪讬讗 砖讻砖讜讱 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讻讘讜住 诇讗 讗讬 讘专讻讬谉 讜讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬 讘拽砖讬谉 讜讻讗讞专讬诐

And that statement that Rav 岣yya 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 岣yya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav 岣yya 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讙讚 谞诪讬 讘讙讚 砖专讬讬转讜 讝讛讜 讻讬讘讜住讜

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.

[专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专拽 住讜讚专 诇诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讝专拽 驻砖转谉 诇诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇诪讗 住讜讚专 注讘讬讚 讻讬讘讜住] 讗诇讗 讝专注 驻砖转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪拽讚讞 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 谞诪讬 讛谞讱 讗讬转 诇讛讜 专讬专讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讞讬诐 谞诪讬 讛转诐 拽注讘讬讚 诇讬砖讛

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.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讜转专 诇讻讘住 诪谞注诇 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬 讘诪讬讗 砖讻砖讜讱 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讻讬讘讜住 诇讗 讛讚专 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讟注讜转 讛诐 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 砖讻砖讜讱 诪讜转专 讻讬讘讜住 讗住讜专

The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya 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.

讛讻讬讘讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讻讘住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚砖 砖讘讬专转 讻诇讬 讞专住 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇讬 讞专砖 讗砖专 转讘砖诇 讘讜 讬砖讘专 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘讻诇讬 谞讞砖转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讘讻诇讬 谞讞砖转 讘砖诇讛 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 讘诪讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淵ou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.鈥

讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讞讟讗转 讻讜壮 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讘讞讟讗讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转

搂 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.

砖讗诐 谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 (诇驻谞讬 讜)诇驻谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚诪讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讛讬讻诇 诇讻驻专 驻住讜诇讛

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鈥檚 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.

砖讻谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讘讞讟讗转 讚砖诪讬注转 讛拽讜诇

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鈥檚 case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.

砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚诪讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转

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.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗讬讻讗 拽专谉 讘讚诐 讛讗讬讻讗 讗爪讘注 讛讗讬讻讗 讞讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪转专讬 转诇转讗 讞讜诪专讬 谞拽讟

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鈥檛 there the requirement to place a sin offering鈥檚 blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isn鈥檛 there the requirement that a priest place a sin offering鈥檚 blood on the altar with his finger? Isn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讙讚 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讻谞住 讜诪讻讘住讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 谞讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 拽讜专注讜 谞讻谞住 讜诪讻讘住讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讻谞住 讜砖讜讘专讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 谞讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讜拽讘讜 讜谞讻谞住 讜砖讜讘专讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖

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.

讻诇讬 谞讞砖转 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讻谞住 讜诪讜专拽讜 讜砖讜讟驻讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 谞讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 驻讜讞转讜 讜谞讻谞住 讜诪讜专拽讜 讜砖讜讟驻讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖

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.

讙诪壮 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 拽讜专注讜 讘讙讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗讜 讘讙讚 讛讜讗

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 鈥渁 garment鈥 (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.

讚诪砖讬讬专 讘讬讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转 讗讘诇 砖讬讬专 讘讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转 讞讘讜专 讛讜讬

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鈥檛 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.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 94

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 94

讜讻诇 诪讬谞讬 讘讙讚讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 注诇讬讛 转讻讘住 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 注讜专 诪砖讛讜驻砖讟 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讙讚 诪讛 讘讙讚 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛

and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.鈥 One might have thought that I include an animal鈥檚 hide after it was flayed. That verse states: 鈥淕arment,鈥 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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讟诇讬转 驻讞讜转讛 诪砖诇砖 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗讜 讘转 拽讘讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘讙讚 砖讞讬砖讘 注诇讬讛 诇爪讜专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪讘讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诇诪讞砖讘转讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗讜 讘转 拽讘讜诇讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讬讗

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 注讜爪讘讗 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讛 诇拽爪注讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 专讗讜讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 专讗讜讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 讛诪拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 诪拽讘诇讛 讟讜诪讗讛 注讚 讚诪拽爪注 诇讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 注讜爪讘讗 砖讞砖讘 注诇讬讛 诇拽爪注讛 讟讛讜专讛 注讚 砖讬拽爪讬注谞讛

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.

讗讬谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 谞转讝 注诇 诪拽爪转 讘讙讚 讬讛讗 讻诇 讛讘讙讚 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讝讛 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诐 讚诐 讘诇讘讚

搂 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: 鈥淎nd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.鈥 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: 鈥淭hat on which it shall be sprinkled.鈥 This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.

讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇拽讘诇 讟讜诪讗讛 [讜讻讜壮] 住转诪讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

专讗讜讬 诇讻讬讘讜住 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻诇讬 讚讘专 讙专讬讚讛 讛讜讗

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.

讗讞讚 讛讘讙讚 讜讗讞讚 讛砖拽 讻讜壮 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚注讜专 讘专 讻讬讘讜住 讛讜讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 诇砖诇砖转 诪拽谞讞讛 讘住诪专讟讜讟 讛讬转讛 注诇 砖诇 注讜专 谞讜转谉 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 注讚 砖转讻诇讛

搂 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗讞专讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 诪讻讘住讜 讛讻诇讬 讜讛注讜专 诪讙专专讜 讗讞专讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讘讙讚 讜讛砖拽 讜讛注讜专 诪讻讘住讜 讜讛讻诇讬 诪讙专专讜

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.

讻诪讗谉 讗讝诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注讜专 诇讗讜 讘专 讻讬讘讜住 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讙讚 讗讜 讛砖转讬 讗讜 讛注专讘 讗讜 讻诇 讻诇讬 讛注讜专 讗砖专 转讻讘住 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 拽专讗 讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘专讻讬谉 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘拽砖讬谉

Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to leprosy: 鈥淎nd the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash鈥 (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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬讛 讘诪讬讗 讘拽砖讬谉 讜讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges Rava鈥檚 explanation: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya 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鈥檚 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.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讬拽讜 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 讚讻讬 讻转讬讘谉 讘专讻讬谉 讻转讬讘谉 诪讬 诇讗 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讻诇讬 讗讻住诇讙讬讗 讛讘讗讬诐 诪诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 谞讬讘注讬 讻讬讘讜住

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 爪专注转 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讙讜驻讬讛 拽讗 驻专讞讛 诪讞诇讞诇讗 诇讬讛 讜诪砖讜讬 诇讛 专讱 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讬 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬

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:

讻专讬诐 讜讻住转讜转 讚专讻讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜转谞谉 讛讬转讛 砖诇 注讜专 谞讜转谉 注诇讬讛 诪讬诐 注讚 砖转讻诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讻讬讘讜住 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 讻讬住讻讜住 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜住

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.

讜讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬讛 讘诪讬讗 砖讻砖讜讱 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讻讘讜住 诇讗 讗讬 讘专讻讬谉 讜讻讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬 讘拽砖讬谉 讜讻讗讞专讬诐

And that statement that Rav 岣yya 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 岣yya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav 岣yya 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘讙讚 谞诪讬 讘讙讚 砖专讬讬转讜 讝讛讜 讻讬讘讜住讜

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.

[专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讝专拽 住讜讚专 诇诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讝专拽 驻砖转谉 诇诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘砖诇诪讗 住讜讚专 注讘讬讚 讻讬讘讜住] 讗诇讗 讝专注 驻砖转谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

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?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪拽讚讞 讗讬 讛讻讬 讞讬讟讬 讜砖注专讬 谞诪讬 讛谞讱 讗讬转 诇讛讜 专讬专讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 砖诇讞讬诐 谞诪讬 讛转诐 拽注讘讬讚 诇讬砖讛

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.

讚专砖 专讘讗 诪讜转专 诇讻讘住 诪谞注诇 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 住讙讬讗讬谉 讛讜讛 拽讗讬诪谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讜砖讻砖讬讻讬 诇讬讛 诪住讗谞讬 讘诪讬讗 砖讻砖讜讱 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讻讬讘讜住 诇讗 讛讚专 讗讜拽讬 专讘讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讗诪专转讬 诇驻谞讬讻诐 讟注讜转 讛诐 讘讬讚讬 讘专诐 讻讱 讗诪专讜 砖讻砖讜讱 诪讜转专 讻讬讘讜住 讗住讜专

The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn鈥檛 Rav 岣yya 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.

讛讻讬讘讜住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讻讘住 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚砖 砖讘讬专转 讻诇讬 讞专住 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇讬 讞专砖 讗砖专 转讘砖诇 讘讜 讬砖讘专 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘讻诇讬 谞讞砖转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讘讻诇讬 谞讞砖转 讘砖诇讛 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 讘诪讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淵ou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.鈥

讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讞讟讗转 讻讜壮 讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讘讞讟讗讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转

搂 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.

砖讗诐 谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 (诇驻谞讬 讜)诇驻谞讬诐 驻住讜诇讛 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚诪讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讛讬讻诇 诇讻驻专 驻住讜诇讛

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鈥檚 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.

砖讻谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讘讞讟讗转 讚砖诪讬注转 讛拽讜诇

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鈥檚 case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.

砖讻谉 讟注讜谞讛 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讚诪讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转

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.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讛讗讬讻讗 拽专谉 讘讚诐 讛讗讬讻讗 讗爪讘注 讛讗讬讻讗 讞讜讚讛 讗诇讗 讞讚 诪转专讬 转诇转讗 讞讜诪专讬 谞拽讟

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鈥檛 there the requirement to place a sin offering鈥檚 blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isn鈥檛 there the requirement that a priest place a sin offering鈥檚 blood on the altar with his finger? Isn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讙讚 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讻谞住 讜诪讻讘住讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 谞讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 拽讜专注讜 谞讻谞住 讜诪讻讘住讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讻诇讬 讞专住 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讻谞住 讜砖讜讘专讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 谞讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讜拽讘讜 讜谞讻谞住 讜砖讜讘专讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖

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.

讻诇讬 谞讞砖转 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 谞讻谞住 讜诪讜专拽讜 讜砖讜讟驻讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 谞讟诪讗 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 驻讜讞转讜 讜谞讻谞住 讜诪讜专拽讜 讜砖讜讟驻讜 讘诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖

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.

讙诪壮 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 拽讜专注讜 讘讙讚 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗讜 讘讙讚 讛讜讗

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 鈥渁 garment鈥 (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.

讚诪砖讬讬专 讘讬讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转 讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转 讗讘诇 砖讬讬专 讘讛 讻讚讬 诪注驻讜专转 讞讘讜专 讛讜讬

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鈥檛 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.

Scroll To Top