Zevachim 96
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 Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on the occasion of their 44th anniversary.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Fally Klein in memory of her Uncle Shimon Lemmer, Shimon Ben Naftali Menachem z”l. “He found such comfort in his daily daf, especially toward the end of his life. May the Torah that brought him comfort be an aliyah for his neshamah. We’ll miss you terribly.”
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 sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Mark Goldstein in honor of his wife, Rena Septee Goldstein, on the occasion of their 44th anniversary.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Fally Klein in memory of her Uncle Shimon Lemmer, Shimon Ben Naftali Menachem z”l. “He found such comfort in his daily daf, especially toward the end of his life. May the Torah that brought him comfort be an aliyah for his neshamah. We’ll miss you terribly.”
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.
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.
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, 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
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
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
See video
Raanana, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Bronx, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
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
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
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
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.
