זבחים צה

זבחים צה

מִדְּרַבָּנַן הוּא.

The Gemara answers that Rav Huna’s statement means that it is ritually impure by rabbinic law, since the Sages decreed the small cloth impure lest one fail to tear a garment enough to render it truly pure. By Torah law, this small cloth is torn enough to be ritually pure, so that one may bring it back into the Temple courtyard to launder it.

כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁיָּצָא כּוּ׳. ״כְּלִי״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא כְּלִי הוּא! שֶׁנִּיקַּב בְּשׁוֹרֶשׁ קָטָן.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains and became ritually impure outside the curtains, one punctures the vessel to render it ritually pure, brings the vessel back into the courtyard, and breaks it there. The Gemara asks: Why is there a need to break the earthenware vessel after puncturing it? The Merciful One states: “The earthenware vessel…shall be broken” (Leviticus 6:21), and, once it is punctured, it is not a vessel. The Gemara explains: When it is punctured with a hole only the size of a small root, the earthenware vessel is purified from the ritual impurity it contracted, but it remains a vessel for other purposes, such as holding fruit.

כְּלִי נְחֹשֶׁת [כּוּ׳]. פּוֹחֲתוֹ [וְכוּ׳]. וְהָא לָאו כְּלִי הוּא! דְּרָצֵיף [לֵיהּ] מִרְצָיף (הוּא).

The mishna teaches: With regard to a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains and became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure, brings the vessel back into the courtyard, and scours and rinses it there. The Gemara asks: Why should the copper vessel be scoured and rinsed? After all, once the hole is bored, this is not a vessel anymore. The Gemara explains: When he hammers it and refashions it into a vessel, he must scour and rinse it.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מְעִיל שֶׁנִּיטְמָא – מַכְנִיסוֹ בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ וּמְכַבְּסוֹ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יִקָּרֵעַ״.

§ Earlier (94b–95a), the Gemara discusses a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed; if it has contracted ritual impurity outside of the Temple courtyard, it must be torn before it is brought back into the courtyard to be laundered. Reish Lakish says: If the robe of the High Priest upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed has contracted ritual impurity outside of the Temple courtyard, one does not tear it; rather, he brings it in to the courtyard gradually, in portions less than the measure of a garment susceptible to impurity, which is three by three fingerbreadths, and he launders it section by section as the robe crosses the threshold. The ritually impure robe must be brought into the courtyard in this manner because it is stated with regard to the High Priest’s robe: “It shall not be torn” (Exodus 28:32).

מוֹתֵיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֶעָבִין וְהָרַכִּים, אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ!

Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection based upon a mishna (Kelim 28:8): The particularly thick garments and the soft garments are not subject to the standard measure of three by three fingerbreadths, with regard to determining their susceptibility to becoming ritually impure. Because of their particular qualities, such garments are useful only when they are larger and are not considered significant items when they measure three by three. Since the High Priest’s robe is a thick garment, why must one bring it into the courtyard only in portions of less than three by three?

אַגַּב אֲבִיהֶן חֲשִׁיבִי.

The Gemara answers: With regard to the whole robe of the High Priest, which is a garment of particular significance, even the small portions of the robe are significant due to their source garment, and are susceptible to impurity in portions measuring three by three fingerbreadths.

וְהָא בָּעֵי שִׁבְעַת סַמְמָנִין, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: דַּם חַטָּאת וּמַרְאוֹת נְגָעִים, צְרִיכִין שִׁבְעַת סַמְמָנִין; וְתַנְיָא: אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין מַכְנִיסִין מֵי רַגְלַיִם לַמִּקְדָּשׁ!

§ The Gemara asks a fundamental question with regard to the procedure for laundering a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed: But isn’t it so that laundering requires seven abrasive substances? As Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Blood of a sin offering that has sprayed on a garment, and shades of leprous marks on garments, which are subject to laundering (see Leviticus 13:54), require the seven abrasive substances used as laundering agents; and these substances include urine (Nidda 61b). And it is taught in a baraita: But urine is not brought into the Temple, because it is inappropriate for the Temple, although urine is theoretically suitable for use in the preparation of the incense spices. Accordingly, how is a garment laundered in the Temple?

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַבְלַע לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי שִׁבְעָה סַמְמָנִין, וּמְעַבַּר לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ כְּחַד; וְהָתְנַן: הֶעֱבִירָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּסִדְרָן אוֹ שֶׁהֶעֱבִיר שִׁבְעָתָן כְּאֶחָד – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם!

The Gemara rejects a solution: And if you would say that the urine is absorbed together with the rest of the seven abrasive substances used as laundering agents, and one applies all of them at once to the garment, such that the urine is not discernable separately, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in a mishna that this method is invalid? The mishna states (Nidda 62a): If one applied them not according to their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing, and the laundering has not been effective.

וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּמַיבְלַע לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי חַד מִסַּמְמָנִין – וְהָא צָרִיךְ לְכַסְכֵּס שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בְּכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד תְּנַן! אֶלָּא דְּמַבְלַע לְהוּ בְּרוֹק תָּפֵל. דְּאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רוֹק תָּפֵל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא עִם כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

The Gemara rejects another solution: And if you would say that the urine is absorbed together with only one of the cleansing substances, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in that mishna: One must rub the garment three times with each and every one of those substances independently? The Gemara resolves: Rather, it must be explained that the urine is absorbed in tasteless saliva, which comes from one who has not eaten since waking; as Reish Lakish says: Tasteless saliva must accompany each and every one of the substances applied to the garment.

מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בּוֹ וְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירָה לְתוֹכוֹ רוֹתֵחַ, אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי (הקדשים) [קֳּדָשִׁים] וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵין טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.

MISHNA: Whether with regard to a copper vessel in which one cooked the meat of an offering or whether with regard to one into which one poured the boiling meat of an offering, whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, such vessels require scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says: Vessels in which offerings of lesser sanctity were cooked or poured do not require scouring and rinsing.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בּוֹ; עֵירָה לְתוֹכוֹ רוֹתֵחַ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וַאֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר״.

GEMARA: Concerning the statement in the mishna that these halakhot also apply to a vessel into which a boiling cooked dish was poured, the Gemara notes that the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “In which it is cooked” (Leviticus 6:21). I have derived only that this applies to a vessel in which one cooked the sin offering. From where do I derive that it applies also to a vessel into which one poured a boiling cooked dish? The verse states more fully: “But the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken.” Since the verse employs the phrase: “In which it is…shall be broken,” that teaches that if the hot meat is in the vessel, whether cooked or poured into the vessel, these halakhot apply to it, and if it is an earthenware vessel it must be broken.

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: תְּלָאוֹ בַּאֲוִיר תַּנּוּר, מַהוּ? אַבִּישּׁוּל וּבִילּוּעַ הוּא דְּקָפֵיד רַחֲמָנָא, אוֹ דִילְמָא אַבִּישּׁוּל בְּלֹא בִּילּוּעַ?

§ Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: If one suspended the meat of a sin offering in the airspace of an earthenware oven in order to roast it, what is the halakha? When the verse requires the breaking of the earthenware vessel, is it only with regard to both cooking and the resultant absorption of the offering’s flavor into the vessel that the Merciful One is particular? If so, an oven would not need to be broken simply because an offering has been roasted within its airspace. Or perhaps, is the Merciful One particular even about cooking in the vessel without absorption of the flavor, and therefore, if meat is roasted while suspended in this oven, the vessel must still be broken?

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אֶחָד שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בּוֹ וְאֶחָד שֶׁעֵירָה לְתוֹכוֹ רוֹתֵחַ.

Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from the mishna: Whether with regard to a copper vessel in which one cooked the meat of an offering or whether with regard to one into which one poured the boiling meat of an offering, the earthenware vessel must be broken. Therefore, the vessel must be broken even if the meat was not cooked in it but only absorbed in its walls, indicating that even if cooking and absorption do not occur together, just one of the two should suffice to require the breaking of the vessel.

בִּלּוּעַ בְּלֹא בִּישּׁוּל – לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן. כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן – בִּישּׁוּל בְּלֹא בִּילּוּעַ, מַאי?

The Gemara rejects the proof: The halakha in a case of the absorption of flavor into an earthenware vessel without cooking the meat in that vessel, as in the case of pouring, was not raised as a dilemma to us. If the boiling offering has been poured into a vessel, the vessel certainly must be broken, since earthenware never fully emits all that it absorbed. When a scenario was raised as a dilemma to us, it was with regard to cooking meat in the vessel without absorption of the flavor by that vessel, as in the case of roasting suspended meat. In such a case, what is the halakha?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ – שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת הָיָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּישּׁוּל בְּלֹא בִּלּוּעַ לָא קָפֵיד, נֶיעְבֵּיד שֶׁל חֶרֶס! כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת דַּאֲפִיָּיתָן בַּתַּנּוּר, וְאִיכָּא בִּישּׁוּל וּבִילּוּעַ, עָבְדִינַן שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, deduced from that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven of the Temple was fashioned of metal. And if it enters your mind that with regard to cooking in a vessel without absorption, the Merciful One is not particular and does not require the breaking of a vessel used in such a fashion, then the oven should be made of earthenware. The Gemara rejects this proof: Since there are the remainders of meal offerings, whose baking is performed in the oven, and there is both cooking and absorption into the oven, as the remains of the meal offerings would be baked directly on the walls of the oven, for this reason alone the oven would have to be broken if it were fashioned of earthenware. Consequently, we fashion it of metal.

הָהוּא תַּנּוּרָא דִּאטְחוֹ בֵּהּ טִיחְיָיא, אַסְרַהּ רַבָּה בַּר אֲהִילַיי לְמֵיכְלַהּ לְרִיפְתָּא לְעוֹלָם וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמִילְחָא, דִּילְמָא אָתֵי לְמֵיכְלַהּ בְּכוּתָּחָא.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain oven that was smeared with animal fat all over its walls and floor. Rabba bar Ahilai prohibited eating bread baked in that oven forever, and he prohibited even eating the bread with salt alone, lest one come to eat it with kutaḥ, a dish made from milk, water, salt, and bread crumbs. According to Rabba bar Ahilai, the oven will never fully eliminate the fat.

מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין לָשִׁין אֶת הָעִיסָּה בְּחָלָב, וְאִם לָשׁ – כׇּל הַפַּת כּוּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵירָה.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: With regard to baking bread, one may not knead the dough with milk, and if one nevertheless kneaded the dough with milk, all of the bread made from that dough is forbidden, because one might become accustomed to sin. As one habitually eats bread with meat, he might also eat this bread with meat and unwittingly transgress the prohibition against eating meat with milk.

כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ – אֵין טָשִׁין אֶת הַתַּנּוּר בְּאַלְיָה, וְאִם טָשׁ – כׇּל הַפַּת כּוּלָּהּ אֲסוּרָה, עַד שֶׁיַּסִּיק אֶת הַתַּנּוּר. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה בַּר אֲהִילַיי! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

The baraita continues: Similarly, one may not smear [tashin] the inside of an oven with the fat of a sheep’s tail, because the fat of the tail has the halakha of meat. And if one nevertheless smeared the oven with the fat of the tail, all of the bread baked in it is forbidden, until one kindles the oven and burns off this fat. Evidently, the bread baked after the oven is kindled again is permitted, because the oven is considered cleansed of the meat fat. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of Rava bar Ahilai, who says that the oven never fully eliminates the fat, is indeed a conclusive refutation.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּאִיתּוֹתַב רַבָּה בַּר אֲהִילַיי, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַב: קְדֵירוֹת בְּפֶסַח יִשָּׁבְרוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רַב מוֹקֵי לַהּ הָהִיא בְּשֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Since the statement of Rava bar Ahilai was conclusively refuted, why does Rav say that pots that were used for leavened bread must be broken before Passover? Presumably, the leavened bread could be burned out of them through kindling instead. Rav Ashi said to him: Rav construes that ruling of the baraita, according to which the fat can be burned out of the oven, as referring to an oven fashioned of metal, which cleanses the fat when kindled. In the case of earthenware vessels, additional kindling is insufficient, because the flavor absorbed within it cannot be cleansed by fire.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּתַנּוּר שֶׁל חֶרֶס; זֶה הֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבִּפְנִים, וְזֶה הֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבַּחוּץ.

Or if you wish, say instead that the baraita is also referring to an earthenware oven, and there is another distinction. This oven is kindled from the inside, and a fire kindled inside the oven suffices to cleanse absorbed flavor. But that pot is kindled from the outside while it rests on the stove, and the heat absorbed in that manner is insufficient to cleanse absorbed flavor.

וְנַעְבֵּיד הֶסֵּקָה מִבִּפְנִים! חָיֵיס עֲלַיְיהוּ, דְּמִתַּבְרִי. הִילְכָּךְ, הַאי כּוּבְיָא – הֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבַּחוּץ הוּא, וַאֲסִיר.

The Gemara suggests: And let us also perform the kindling of the pot from the inside, in order to cleanse that which has been absorbed. The Gemara answers: This solution is not feasible; the owners of such pots might be concerned for them, as they are apt to break if the heat becomes too great. Consequently, the owners will not apply sufficient heat to ensure that the absorbed flavor will be completely cleansed. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, with regard to this earthenware tile [kuvya], which is used on the fire as a baking pan and its kindling is from the outside, it becomes prohibited for subsequent use by the flavors absorbed within, which cannot be cleansed.