Zevachim 94

וכל מיני בגדים תלמוד לומר אשר עליה תכבס יכול שאני מרבה עור משהופשט תלמוד לומר בגד מה בגד דבר המקבל טומאה אף כל דבר המקבל טומאה

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.

מאי בינייהו אמר אביי מטלית פחותה משלש איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר ראוי הא נמי ראוי דאי בעי חשיב עליה מאן דאמר דבר המקבל טומאה הא מיהא לאו בת קבולי טומאה היא

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.

רבא אמר בגד שחישב עליה לצורה איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר ראוי הא נמי ראוי דאי בעי מבטיל ליה למחשבתיה מאן דאמר דבר המקבל טומאה השתא מיהא לאו בת קבולי טומאה היא

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.

רבא אמר עוצבא דחשיב עלה לקצעה איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר ראוי הא נמי ראויה מאן דאמר דבר המקבל טומאה הא לאו מקבלה טומאה עד דמקצע לה והתניא רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר עוצבא שחשב עליה לקצעה טהורה עד שיקציענה

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.

אין טעון כיבוס כו׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן יכול נתז על מקצת בגד יהא כל הבגד טעון כיבוס תלמוד לומר אשר יזה לא אמרתי לך אלא מקום דם בלבד

§ 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.

דבר שהוא ראוי לקבל טומאה [וכו׳] סתמא כרבי יהודה

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.

ראוי לכיבוס למעוטי כלי דבר גרידה הוא

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.

אחד הבגד ואחד השק כו׳ למימרא דעור בר כיבוס הוא ורמינהו היתה עליו לשלשת מקנחה בסמרטוט היתה על של עור נותן עליה מים עד שתכלה

§ 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.

אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבנן הא אחרים דתניא הבגד והשק מכבסו הכלי והעור מגררו אחרים אומרים הבגד והשק והעור מכבסו והכלי מגררו

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.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאניה במיא כמאן כרבנן

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.

אמר רבא ומי איכא למאן דאמר עור לאו בר כיבוס הוא והכתיב והבגד או השתי או הערב או כל כלי העור אשר תכבס אלא אמר רבא קרא ומתניתין ברכין כי פליגי בקשין

§ 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.

והאמר רב חייא זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאניה במיא בקשין וכרבנן

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.

הדר אמר רבא לאו מילתא היא דאמרי ניקו נימא ליה לקרא דכי כתיבן ברכין כתיבן מי לא עסקינן בכלי אכסלגיא הבאים ממדינת הים וקאמר רחמנא ניבעי כיבוס

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?

אלא אמר רבא צרעת כיון דמגופיה קא פרחה מחלחלא ליה ומשוי לה רך אמר רבא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי

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:

כרים וכסתות דרכין נינהו ותנן היתה של עור נותן עליה מים עד שתכלה אלא אמר רבא כל כיבוס דלית ליה כיסכוס לא שמיה כיבוס

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.

והא דאמר רב חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאניה במיא שכשוך אין אבל כבוס לא אי ברכין וכדברי הכל אי בקשין וכאחרים

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.

אי הכי בגד נמי בגד שרייתו זהו כיבוסו

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.

[רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא זרק סודר למים חייב זרק פשתן למים חייב בשלמא סודר עביד כיבוס] אלא זרע פשתן מאי טעמא

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?

וכי תימא משום דמקדח אי הכי חיטי ושערי נמי הנך אית להו רירי אי הכי שלחים נמי התם קעביד לישה

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.

דרש רבא מותר לכבס מנעל בשבת אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא והא אמר רב חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאני במיא שכשוך אין אבל כיבוס לא הדר אוקי רבא אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הם בידי ברם כך אמרו שכשוך מותר כיבוס אסור

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.

הכיבוס במקום קדוש כו׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן תכבס במקום קדש שבירת כלי חרס מניין תלמוד לומר וכלי חרש אשר תבשל בו ישבר מריקה ושטיפה בכלי נחשת מנין תלמוד לומר ואם בכלי נחשת בשלה ומרק ושטף במים

§ 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.”

זה חומר בחטאת כו׳ ותו ליכא והאיכא שנכנס דמה לפני ולפנים בחטאות החיצונות

§ 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.

שאם נכנס דמה (לפני ו)לפנים פסולה כרבי עקיבא דאמר כל דמים שנכנסו להיכל לכפר פסולה

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.

שכן מכפרין על חייבי כריתות בחטאת דשמיעת הקול

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.

שכן טעונה ארבע מתנות כרבי ישמעאל דאמר כל דמים טעונין ארבע מתנות על ארבע קרנות

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.

וליטעמיך האיכא קרן בדם האיכא אצבע האיכא חודה אלא חד מתרי תלתא חומרי נקט

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.

מתני׳ בגד שיצא חוץ לקלעים נכנס ומכבסו במקום קדוש נטמא חוץ לקלעים קורעו נכנס ומכבסו במקום קדוש כלי חרס שיצא חוץ לקלעים נכנס ושוברו במקום קדוש נטמא חוץ לקלעים נוקבו ונכנס ושוברו במקום קדוש

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.

כלי נחשת שיצא חוץ לקלעים נכנס ומורקו ושוטפו במקום קדוש נטמא חוץ לקלעים פוחתו ונכנס ומורקו ושוטפו במקום קדוש

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.

גמ׳ מתקיף לה רבינא קורעו בגד אמר רחמנא ולאו בגד הוא

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.

דמשייר ביה כדי מעפורת איני והאמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא שייר בה כדי מעפורת אבל שייר בה כדי מעפורת חבור הוי

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.