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 dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the refuah shleima of our dear friend and co-learner, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשא רחל. “Phyllis, you continue to inspire and uplift us with your messages throughout this time. Your emunah is the embodiment of ה’ רועי לא אחסר. May הקב”ה grant you strength, healing and stamina each and every day.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in loving memory of Major Yaniv Kula and Staff-Sgt. Itay Yavetz, both from Modi’in, who were killed in Gaza. “Yaniv brought light, wisdom, and values wherever he went. Throughout his life, he acted to make the country better—and out of a deep sense of mission, he said: ‘Now it is my turn.’ Itay, charismatic and full of strength, left behind words of depth and significance, writing that the world is full of infinite meaning. May their memory be a blessing.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara raises two difficulties with the conclusion that earthenware vessels can be koshered by placing fire inside them. First, why does the Torah command that earthenware vessels in which sanctified meat was cooked must be broken, if they could simply be put into a kiln? The answer given is that kilns could not be used in Jerusalem, as they would blacken the walls and mar the beauty of the city. Second, why were the Temple ovens made of metal if earthenware ovens could have been used and koshered? The assumption behind this question is flawed, since the ovens needed to serve as a sanctified vessel in certain cases (such as the two loaves on Shavuot and the showbread), and sanctified vessels cannot be made of earthenware.
Rav Yitzchak bar Yehuda left the study hall of Rami bar Hama and joined that of Rav Sheshet. Rami bar Hama was offended, assuming Rav Yitzchak sought greater honor. Rav Yitzchak explained that he had not received satisfactory answers from Rami bar Hama, who relied on logical reasoning rather than tannaitic sources. Rami bar Hama challenged Rav Yitzchak to send him a question, promising to answer with a tannaitic source. Rav Yitzchak asked about merika and shtifa (scouring and rinsing) of a vessel in which only part was used for cooking sacrificial items: does the entire vessel require cleansing, or only the part that was used? Rami bar Hama answered logically that only the part used requires cleansing, as in the case of blood on clothing. Rav Yitzchak rejected this reasoning and cited a braita proving the opposite, thereby refuting Rami bar Hama completely.
Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the requirement of merika and shtifa applies to both kodshei kodashim and kodashim kalim, or only to kodshei kodashim. From where do they derive this distinction? They both agree that merika and shtifa do not apply to truma. The Gemara raises a challenge to this from a braita, and three answers are offered.
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 dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for the refuah shleima of our dear friend and co-learner, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשא רחל. “Phyllis, you continue to inspire and uplift us with your messages throughout this time. Your emunah is the embodiment of ה’ רועי לא אחסר. May הקב”ה grant you strength, healing and stamina each and every day.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Pnina Lipskier in loving memory of Major Yaniv Kula and Staff-Sgt. Itay Yavetz, both from Modi’in, who were killed in Gaza. “Yaniv brought light, wisdom, and values wherever he went. Throughout his life, he acted to make the country better—and out of a deep sense of mission, he said: ‘Now it is my turn.’ Itay, charismatic and full of strength, left behind words of depth and significance, writing that the world is full of infinite meaning. May their memory be a blessing.”
Zevachim 96
אֶלָּא קְדֵירוֹת שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא יִשָּׁבְרוּ? נַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְכִבְשׁוֹנוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara challenges: But according to the opinion that earthenware vessels can be cleansed of their absorbed substances by the process of kindling, with regard to pots used in the Temple, why does the Merciful One state in the Torah that they should be broken? Let us simply return them to the kilns in which pots are made to be sure that the pots will be cleansed by the extreme heat of the kilns. Rabbi Zeira said: The pots cannot be returned to kilns because, as taught in a baraita (see Bava Kamma 82b), kilns are not built in Jerusalem because of the great quantity of smoke they produce.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי עוֹשִׂין אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת בָּעֲזָרָה?! אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּתָנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה בְּקַלְנְבוֹ: שִׁבְרֵי כְּלֵי חֶרֶס נִבְלָעִין בִּמְקוֹמָן.
The Gemara presents an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s answer. Abaye said: But if, as the baraita teaches, there are no kilns in Jerusalem, are scrap heaps of earthenware assembled in the Temple courtyard? The same baraita also teaches that there are no scrap heaps in Jerusalem. What, then, is done with the shards of earthenware vessels that must be broken in the courtyard? The Gemara dismisses the question: Abaye raised that objection only because that which Shemaya taught in Kalnevo escaped him; Shemaya taught there: In the Temple, shards of earthenware vessels were miraculously absorbed in their place.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת הֲוָה – נֶעְבֵּיד דְּחֶרֶס, דְּהֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבְּפָנִים הוּא!
The Gemara returns to the topic of kindling earthenware vessels and asks: But if kindling from within cleanses everything absorbed in an earthenware oven, what is the reason for that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven in the Temple was fashioned of metal? Let us fashion it of earthenware, as an oven’s kindling is from the inside, and, accordingly, it would be possible to cleanse it?
דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – דַּאֲפִיָּיתָן בְּתַנּוּר וּקְדוּשָּׁתָן בְּתַנּוּר; הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דְּחֶרֶס לָא עָבְדִינַן.
The Gemara answers: The reason the oven must be fashioned of metal is because there are the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat, and the shewbread, i.e., the bread baked each week in a special form and displayed for the duration of one whole week on the table in the Sanctuary, whose baking is done in the oven, and also whose sanctification occurs in the oven. Because these offerings are not kneaded in a service vessel, they are sanctified only by being placed in the oven, and therefore the oven is a service vessel; and we do not make a service vessel of earthenware.
וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא דְּעֵץ, אֲבָל דְּחֶרֶס לָא.
And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says only that a service vessel may be fashioned of wood, which is a somewhat significant material, but with regard to a service vessel fashioned of earthenware, he holds that this is not valid.
רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יְהוּדָה הֲוָה רְגִיל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, שַׁבְקֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַלְקַפְטָא נַקְטַן, רֵיחָא אָתֵי לַהּ לְיָד?! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזְלַתְּ לָךְ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָוֵית לָךְ כִּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת?!
§ The Gemara relates an incident related to the halakha of scouring and rinsing. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda was initially accustomed to study Torah before Rami bar Ḥama. After some time, he left him and went to study before Rav Sheshet. One day Rami bar Ḥama met him and said to him colloquially: Did you assume, as many do, that when the chief of taxes [alkafta] grasped me by the hand, the fragrance of his hand came to my hand? Do you think that because you went away from me in order to study before Rav Sheshet, have you become like Rav Sheshet merely by association?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו מִשּׁוּם הָכִי; מָר – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִסְּבָרָא; כִּי מַשְׁכַּחְנָא מַתְנִיתָא – פָּרְכָא לַהּ. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא מִינֵּיהּ, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא; דְּכִי נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַתְנִיתָא וּפָרְכָא – מַתְנִיתָא וּמַתְנִיתָא הִיא.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: It is not due to that reason that I went to study before Rav Sheshet, but for another reason. As for you, Master, when I ask with regard to any matter, Master resolves the question for me through reasoning. Consequently, when I find a mishna that opposes that reasoning, it refutes Master’s proposed resolution. As for Rav Sheshet, when I ask of him a question concerning any matter, he resolves the question for me by citing a mishna. Consequently, when I also find a mishna, and that mishna refutes the proposed resolution, it is a dispute between one mishna and another mishna, which does not necessarily refute the mishna that he cited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעִי מִינַּי מִילְּתָא, דְּאִיפְשִׁיט לָךְ כִּי מַתְנִיתָא. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, אוֹ אֵין טָעוּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ טָעוּן, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהַזָּאָה.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Ask me about a matter, which I will resolve for you in accordance with a mishna. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda asked him: If one cooked a sin offering in only part of a vessel, does the entire vessel require scouring and rinsing, or does it not require scouring and rinsing? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: The entire vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, just as it is taught concerning sprinkling the blood of a sin offering upon a garment. In the latter case, the mishna teaches (93b) that one must launder only the part of the garment on which the blood sprayed.
וְהָא לָא תְּנָא הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּבֶגֶד – מָה בֶּגֶד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא מְקוֹם הַדָּם, אַף כְּלִי אֵינוֹ טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda replied: But the tanna does not teach this explicitly. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that the scouring and rinsing of a vessel in which sacred meat was cooked should be like the laundering of a garment, as follows: Just as a garment requires laundering only in the place where the blood was sprayed, so too, it must be that a vessel requires scouring and rinsing only in the place where the meat underwent the process of cooking.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! דָּם לָא מְפַעְפַּע, בִּישּׁוּל מְפַעְפַּע! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה מִמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה מִבְּהַזָּאָה:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: Are the situations comparable? Blood does not spread and penetrate all parts of the garment, but in the case of cooking, the flavor of the meat spreads throughout the entire vessel. Additionally, your reasoning opposes that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:15): A certain stringency applies to sprinkling more than it applies to scouring and rinsing; and a certain stringency applies to scouring and rinsing more than it applies to sprinkling.
חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה – שֶׁהַזָּאָה יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת וּבְחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, וְיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to sprinkling is that the halakha of the sprinkling of blood on a garment applies to external sin offerings, brought on the altar in the Temple courtyard, and to internal sin offerings, whose blood is sprinkled on the altar in the Sanctuary; and the halakha of blood sprayed onto a garment applies if it sprays before the required sprinkling of the offering’s blood on the altar; which is not so in the case of scouring and rinsing. Scouring and rinsing are required only for external sin offerings, whose meat is eaten and therefore cooked; and it applies only after the sprinkling of blood on the altar, after which the meat may be eaten.
חוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – שֶׁהַמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת הַכְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּהַזָּאָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to scouring and rinsing is that the scouring and rinsing of vessels is practiced both for offerings of the most sacred order and for offerings of lesser sanctity; and even if one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing, which is not so in the case of errantly sprinkling blood onto a garment, for which one must launder only the place on which the blood sprayed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. The Gemara then clarifies: And what is the reason that an entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing even if one cooked the meat of an offering in only part of the vessel? The reason is that the verse states: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21). From the phrase “in a copper vessel” it is derived that even if the meat is cooked in only part of a vessel, the entire vessel must be scoured and rinsed.
אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת, כׇּל קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא״.
§ The mishna teaches: Whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, the vessels in which it is cooked must be scoured and rinsed. The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught: The Torah introduces the mitzva of scouring and rinsing with the qualifying statement: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18). From this verse I have derived only that the halakha with regard to scouring and rinsing applies to vessels in which a sin offering was cooked. From where do I derive that this halakha applies to vessels used for all sacrificial meat? The verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22), to teach that this halakha applies to vessels used for all of the sacrificial meat that the priests eat.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – פְּרָט לִתְרוּמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵינָן טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים״ – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אֵין, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לָא.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should include vessels used for cooking teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as well, as it is also sacred and may be eaten only by a priest (see Leviticus 22:14). To counter this, the verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22). The emphatic qualifier “of it” excludes teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings of the most sacred order require scouring and rinsing, but offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, as it is written: “Most sacred.” Accordingly, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, yes, scouring and rinsing is required; but for offerings of lesser sanctity, no, it is not required.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּרוּמָה, מִכְּלָל דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר לָךְ: ״אוֹתָהּ״ כִּדְאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: The baraita explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning; what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: Since the qualifying term “of it” was necessary to exclude teruma, by inference, it must be that vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity require scouring and rinsing. If even offerings of lesser sanctity are excluded from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, it would be self-evident that the vessel used for teruma is exempt from scouring and rinsing. Accordingly, the direct exclusion of teruma indicates that the vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity are not excluded. And Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The term “of it” teaches a different halakha and excludes a disqualified sin offering from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, as we say earlier in this chapter (93a).
וּתְרוּמָה לָא בָּעֲיָא שְׁטִיפָה וּמְרִיקָה?! וְהָתַנְיָא: קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. תְּרוּמָה לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חוּלִּין, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם!
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that with regard to a copper vessel used to cook teruma, it does not require rinsing and scouring? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 8:16): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it; and if one cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to it. Similarly, if one cooked teruma in a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one cooked non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the mixture sacred if it imparts flavor to it. Therefore, a pot requires purging with boiling liquid in order to expel the flavor of teruma from it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי. הָא תְּרוּמָה – לָא צְרִיךְ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Three amora’im address the apparent inconsistency that while the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, the baraita teaches that these vessels must be purged. Abaye said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: If one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing. By contrast, in this case, if teruma was cooked in only part of a vessel, one must perform scouring and rinsing only in the place of the cooking, and not in the whole vessel.
רָבָא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּיַיִן, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּמָזוּג. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּיַיִן וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמָזוּג.
Rava said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, that is necessary only for that which the Master said: The verse specifies: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21), but the vessel is not to be scoured and rinsed in wine. It must be scoured and rinsed “in water,” but not in diluted wine. By contrast, in this case, i.e., the vessel in which teruma was cooked, it may be scoured and rinsed even in wine, and even in diluted wine.
רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַמִּין.
Rabba bar Ulla said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: One must perform scouring and rinsing with cold water, in addition to purging a vessel of its absorbed flavors with boiling water. By contrast, in this case, i.e., with regard to the vessel in which teruma was cooked, one may cleanse the vessel even by performing only the purging with boiling water, which removes the residue of the forbidden food, and omitting the cold water processes entirely.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שְׁטִיפָה יַתִּירְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that scouring and rinsing are performed with cold water; but according to the one who says that scouring is done by purging with hot water, and rinsing is a different procedure performed with cold water, what can be said? According to this opinion, the verse is also referring to purging; and if the verse excludes vessels used for teruma, how does the baraita teach that such vessels must be purged? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion that differentiates scouring, which is done with boiling water, from rinsing, which is done with cold water, the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma only from the additional rinsing that the Torah requires after the scouring.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּישֵּׁל מִתְּחִילַּת הָרֶגֶל – יְבַשֵּׁל בּוֹ כָּל הָרֶגֶל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – מְרִיקָה כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, וּשְׁטִיפָה כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a copper vessel from the beginning of the pilgrimage Festival, one may cook in it for the entire pilgrimage Festival; he need not scour and rinse the vessel after every use. And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, the cleaning done when wine sticks to the cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup. Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
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
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Philadelphia, United States
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Zevachim 96
אֶלָּא קְדֵירוֹת שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא יִשָּׁבְרוּ? נַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְכִבְשׁוֹנוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara challenges: But according to the opinion that earthenware vessels can be cleansed of their absorbed substances by the process of kindling, with regard to pots used in the Temple, why does the Merciful One state in the Torah that they should be broken? Let us simply return them to the kilns in which pots are made to be sure that the pots will be cleansed by the extreme heat of the kilns. Rabbi Zeira said: The pots cannot be returned to kilns because, as taught in a baraita (see Bava Kamma 82b), kilns are not built in Jerusalem because of the great quantity of smoke they produce.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי עוֹשִׂין אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת בָּעֲזָרָה?! אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּתָנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה בְּקַלְנְבוֹ: שִׁבְרֵי כְּלֵי חֶרֶס נִבְלָעִין בִּמְקוֹמָן.
The Gemara presents an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s answer. Abaye said: But if, as the baraita teaches, there are no kilns in Jerusalem, are scrap heaps of earthenware assembled in the Temple courtyard? The same baraita also teaches that there are no scrap heaps in Jerusalem. What, then, is done with the shards of earthenware vessels that must be broken in the courtyard? The Gemara dismisses the question: Abaye raised that objection only because that which Shemaya taught in Kalnevo escaped him; Shemaya taught there: In the Temple, shards of earthenware vessels were miraculously absorbed in their place.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת הֲוָה – נֶעְבֵּיד דְּחֶרֶס, דְּהֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבְּפָנִים הוּא!
The Gemara returns to the topic of kindling earthenware vessels and asks: But if kindling from within cleanses everything absorbed in an earthenware oven, what is the reason for that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven in the Temple was fashioned of metal? Let us fashion it of earthenware, as an oven’s kindling is from the inside, and, accordingly, it would be possible to cleanse it?
דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – דַּאֲפִיָּיתָן בְּתַנּוּר וּקְדוּשָּׁתָן בְּתַנּוּר; הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דְּחֶרֶס לָא עָבְדִינַן.
The Gemara answers: The reason the oven must be fashioned of metal is because there are the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat, and the shewbread, i.e., the bread baked each week in a special form and displayed for the duration of one whole week on the table in the Sanctuary, whose baking is done in the oven, and also whose sanctification occurs in the oven. Because these offerings are not kneaded in a service vessel, they are sanctified only by being placed in the oven, and therefore the oven is a service vessel; and we do not make a service vessel of earthenware.
וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא דְּעֵץ, אֲבָל דְּחֶרֶס לָא.
And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says only that a service vessel may be fashioned of wood, which is a somewhat significant material, but with regard to a service vessel fashioned of earthenware, he holds that this is not valid.
רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יְהוּדָה הֲוָה רְגִיל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, שַׁבְקֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַלְקַפְטָא נַקְטַן, רֵיחָא אָתֵי לַהּ לְיָד?! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזְלַתְּ לָךְ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָוֵית לָךְ כִּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת?!
§ The Gemara relates an incident related to the halakha of scouring and rinsing. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda was initially accustomed to study Torah before Rami bar Ḥama. After some time, he left him and went to study before Rav Sheshet. One day Rami bar Ḥama met him and said to him colloquially: Did you assume, as many do, that when the chief of taxes [alkafta] grasped me by the hand, the fragrance of his hand came to my hand? Do you think that because you went away from me in order to study before Rav Sheshet, have you become like Rav Sheshet merely by association?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו מִשּׁוּם הָכִי; מָר – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִסְּבָרָא; כִּי מַשְׁכַּחְנָא מַתְנִיתָא – פָּרְכָא לַהּ. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא מִינֵּיהּ, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא; דְּכִי נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַתְנִיתָא וּפָרְכָא – מַתְנִיתָא וּמַתְנִיתָא הִיא.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: It is not due to that reason that I went to study before Rav Sheshet, but for another reason. As for you, Master, when I ask with regard to any matter, Master resolves the question for me through reasoning. Consequently, when I find a mishna that opposes that reasoning, it refutes Master’s proposed resolution. As for Rav Sheshet, when I ask of him a question concerning any matter, he resolves the question for me by citing a mishna. Consequently, when I also find a mishna, and that mishna refutes the proposed resolution, it is a dispute between one mishna and another mishna, which does not necessarily refute the mishna that he cited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעִי מִינַּי מִילְּתָא, דְּאִיפְשִׁיט לָךְ כִּי מַתְנִיתָא. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, אוֹ אֵין טָעוּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ טָעוּן, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהַזָּאָה.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Ask me about a matter, which I will resolve for you in accordance with a mishna. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda asked him: If one cooked a sin offering in only part of a vessel, does the entire vessel require scouring and rinsing, or does it not require scouring and rinsing? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: The entire vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, just as it is taught concerning sprinkling the blood of a sin offering upon a garment. In the latter case, the mishna teaches (93b) that one must launder only the part of the garment on which the blood sprayed.
וְהָא לָא תְּנָא הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּבֶגֶד – מָה בֶּגֶד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא מְקוֹם הַדָּם, אַף כְּלִי אֵינוֹ טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda replied: But the tanna does not teach this explicitly. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that the scouring and rinsing of a vessel in which sacred meat was cooked should be like the laundering of a garment, as follows: Just as a garment requires laundering only in the place where the blood was sprayed, so too, it must be that a vessel requires scouring and rinsing only in the place where the meat underwent the process of cooking.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! דָּם לָא מְפַעְפַּע, בִּישּׁוּל מְפַעְפַּע! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה מִמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה מִבְּהַזָּאָה:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: Are the situations comparable? Blood does not spread and penetrate all parts of the garment, but in the case of cooking, the flavor of the meat spreads throughout the entire vessel. Additionally, your reasoning opposes that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:15): A certain stringency applies to sprinkling more than it applies to scouring and rinsing; and a certain stringency applies to scouring and rinsing more than it applies to sprinkling.
חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה – שֶׁהַזָּאָה יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת וּבְחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, וְיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to sprinkling is that the halakha of the sprinkling of blood on a garment applies to external sin offerings, brought on the altar in the Temple courtyard, and to internal sin offerings, whose blood is sprinkled on the altar in the Sanctuary; and the halakha of blood sprayed onto a garment applies if it sprays before the required sprinkling of the offering’s blood on the altar; which is not so in the case of scouring and rinsing. Scouring and rinsing are required only for external sin offerings, whose meat is eaten and therefore cooked; and it applies only after the sprinkling of blood on the altar, after which the meat may be eaten.
חוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – שֶׁהַמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת הַכְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּהַזָּאָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to scouring and rinsing is that the scouring and rinsing of vessels is practiced both for offerings of the most sacred order and for offerings of lesser sanctity; and even if one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing, which is not so in the case of errantly sprinkling blood onto a garment, for which one must launder only the place on which the blood sprayed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. The Gemara then clarifies: And what is the reason that an entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing even if one cooked the meat of an offering in only part of the vessel? The reason is that the verse states: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21). From the phrase “in a copper vessel” it is derived that even if the meat is cooked in only part of a vessel, the entire vessel must be scoured and rinsed.
אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת, כׇּל קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא״.
§ The mishna teaches: Whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, the vessels in which it is cooked must be scoured and rinsed. The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught: The Torah introduces the mitzva of scouring and rinsing with the qualifying statement: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18). From this verse I have derived only that the halakha with regard to scouring and rinsing applies to vessels in which a sin offering was cooked. From where do I derive that this halakha applies to vessels used for all sacrificial meat? The verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22), to teach that this halakha applies to vessels used for all of the sacrificial meat that the priests eat.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – פְּרָט לִתְרוּמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵינָן טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים״ – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אֵין, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לָא.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should include vessels used for cooking teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as well, as it is also sacred and may be eaten only by a priest (see Leviticus 22:14). To counter this, the verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22). The emphatic qualifier “of it” excludes teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings of the most sacred order require scouring and rinsing, but offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, as it is written: “Most sacred.” Accordingly, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, yes, scouring and rinsing is required; but for offerings of lesser sanctity, no, it is not required.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּרוּמָה, מִכְּלָל דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר לָךְ: ״אוֹתָהּ״ כִּדְאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: The baraita explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning; what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: Since the qualifying term “of it” was necessary to exclude teruma, by inference, it must be that vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity require scouring and rinsing. If even offerings of lesser sanctity are excluded from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, it would be self-evident that the vessel used for teruma is exempt from scouring and rinsing. Accordingly, the direct exclusion of teruma indicates that the vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity are not excluded. And Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The term “of it” teaches a different halakha and excludes a disqualified sin offering from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, as we say earlier in this chapter (93a).
וּתְרוּמָה לָא בָּעֲיָא שְׁטִיפָה וּמְרִיקָה?! וְהָתַנְיָא: קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. תְּרוּמָה לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חוּלִּין, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם!
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that with regard to a copper vessel used to cook teruma, it does not require rinsing and scouring? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 8:16): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it; and if one cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to it. Similarly, if one cooked teruma in a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one cooked non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the mixture sacred if it imparts flavor to it. Therefore, a pot requires purging with boiling liquid in order to expel the flavor of teruma from it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי. הָא תְּרוּמָה – לָא צְרִיךְ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Three amora’im address the apparent inconsistency that while the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, the baraita teaches that these vessels must be purged. Abaye said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: If one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing. By contrast, in this case, if teruma was cooked in only part of a vessel, one must perform scouring and rinsing only in the place of the cooking, and not in the whole vessel.
רָבָא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּיַיִן, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּמָזוּג. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּיַיִן וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמָזוּג.
Rava said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, that is necessary only for that which the Master said: The verse specifies: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21), but the vessel is not to be scoured and rinsed in wine. It must be scoured and rinsed “in water,” but not in diluted wine. By contrast, in this case, i.e., the vessel in which teruma was cooked, it may be scoured and rinsed even in wine, and even in diluted wine.
רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַמִּין.
Rabba bar Ulla said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: One must perform scouring and rinsing with cold water, in addition to purging a vessel of its absorbed flavors with boiling water. By contrast, in this case, i.e., with regard to the vessel in which teruma was cooked, one may cleanse the vessel even by performing only the purging with boiling water, which removes the residue of the forbidden food, and omitting the cold water processes entirely.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שְׁטִיפָה יַתִּירְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that scouring and rinsing are performed with cold water; but according to the one who says that scouring is done by purging with hot water, and rinsing is a different procedure performed with cold water, what can be said? According to this opinion, the verse is also referring to purging; and if the verse excludes vessels used for teruma, how does the baraita teach that such vessels must be purged? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion that differentiates scouring, which is done with boiling water, from rinsing, which is done with cold water, the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma only from the additional rinsing that the Torah requires after the scouring.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּישֵּׁל מִתְּחִילַּת הָרֶגֶל – יְבַשֵּׁל בּוֹ כָּל הָרֶגֶל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – מְרִיקָה כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, וּשְׁטִיפָה כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a copper vessel from the beginning of the pilgrimage Festival, one may cook in it for the entire pilgrimage Festival; he need not scour and rinse the vessel after every use. And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, the cleaning done when wine sticks to the cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup. Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water.
