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 Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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 Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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.
Zevachim Daf 94-101– Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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 began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Raanana, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Zevachim 94
ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ‘Χ΄. ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: βYou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.β One might have thought that I include an animalβs hide after it was flayed. That verse states: βGarment,β 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧͺ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
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.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’ΧΦΌΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ’ΧΦΌΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ.
Β§ 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: βAnd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.β 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: βThat on which it shall be sprinkled.β This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ [ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³]. Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΧΦΌΧ?! ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ β Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ!
Β§ 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧ§ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav αΈ€iyya 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΧΦΌΧ?! ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧͺΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ‘Χ΄! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ.
Β§ Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isnβt it written with regard to leprosy: βAnd the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall washβ (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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ! ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara challenges Ravaβs explanation: But didnβt Rav αΈ€iyya 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 Ravaβs 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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ΄Χ; Χ Φ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΌ Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ?! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘?
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?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ’Φ·Χͺ β ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ°. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ:
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:
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ‘Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ; Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
And that statement that Rav αΈ€iyya 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 αΈ€iyya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav αΈ€iyya 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.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉ.
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.
Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ β Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘; ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧ¨Φ·Χ’ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?
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?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ§Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ©Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ·ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧͺ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ; Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ©Χ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ: Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨.
The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didnβt Rav αΈ€iyya 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: Χ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ‘ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΉΧ©ΧΧ΄. Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ»Χ©Φ·ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ¨Χ΄. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦ»ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ»ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
Β§ 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: βYou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred placeβ (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: βAnd the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be brokenβ (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: βAnd if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.β
ΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ?! ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
Β§ 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.
Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ (ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°)ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧ¨ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
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 offeringβs 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.
Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ! ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧ.
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 anotherβs case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.
Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ! ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’! ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ.
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? Isnβt there the requirement to place a sin offeringβs blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isnβt there the requirement that a priest place a sin offeringβs blood on the altar with his finger? Isnβt 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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ§ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ’ΧΦΉ, Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ‘ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ ΧΦΉΧ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ§ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘ ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ§ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ§Φ΅ΧΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ§ΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ’ΧΦΉ?! Χ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ!
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 βa garmentβ (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΄Χ?! ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ!
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 doesnβt 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.
