Zevachim 93a (צג.) — the Talmud in English

Rami bar Ḥama asked Rav Ḥisda: If

the blood

splashed

onto an impure garment, and the blood became impure through contact with the garment,

what is the halakha?

Does it have the status of blood that was impure beforehand, and since it is disqualified, it does not require laundering?

Or perhaps, since at the time it fell onto the garment the blood was fit, it requires laundering, as its disqualification and its obligation of laundering take effect simultaneously.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Since Rami bar Ḥama raised the question

in this manner,

conclude from it

that it was obvious to him that if the blood became impure before it splashed onto the garment, it certainly would not require laundering, even though there had been a time when it was fit, for he holds that a ḥatat that

had a time when it was fit and then became disqualified does not have blood that requires laundering.

However, he raised a doubt concerning a case in which the blood itself became impure at the moment it fell onto the garment: Do we say that

this applies

only to the rule that disqualified blood does not require laundering

when the two events occur one after the other,

namely, it became disqualified and only afterward splashed onto the garment?

But

when it splashed onto an impure garment and became disqualified

simultaneously, it does not

have the status of disqualified blood that fell onto the garment; rather, it requires laundering.

Or perhaps it is no different,

and even if it became impure simultaneously when it fell onto the garment, it does not require laundering?

He said to him,

Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Ḥama: This question depends

on the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis, according to Rabba’s

interpretation of their dispute,

and as Abaye explained

to Rabba, who accepted his explanation.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Elazar says: The waters of purification

made from the ashes of the red heifer, which are sprinkled upon one who is impure with impurity imparted by a corpse in order to purify him, even though

they became impure

before they were sprinkled upon one impure with corpse impurity, nevertheless they

purify

the person who contracted corpse impurity, as though the water had not become impure.

The proof that waters of purification that became impure remain fit for sprinkling is

that a menstruant

who was impure with corpse impurity in addition to her menstrual impurity

is sprinkled with

waters of purification to purify her from corpse impurity even before she immerses in order to purify herself from her menstrual impurity, since we do not find in the Torah that a menstruant must immerse to become purified from her menstrual impurity before the sprinkling is performed upon her.

These waters of purification become impure through contact with the menstruant, and nevertheless they purify her from corpse impurity. This provides a proof concerning waters of purification that became impure: nevertheless, they purify the person, as though they had not become impure.

And Rabba said: Rabbi Elazar,

who brings proof from a menstruant, although this is not analogous, since in the case of a menstruant the sprinkling of the water upon her and its becoming impure occur simultaneously, and no proof can be brought from that case concerning waters of purification that became impure before sprinkling, must necessarily have stated his opinion

in accordance with the view of his teacher Rabbi Akiva, who said: Carrying a vessel

containing waters of purification through the air

over an impure place

causes the vessel

to be considered as placed

upon the source of impurity; it

is considered

as though it were resting there, and the vessel becomes impure, as do the waters of purification inside it.

This is a special stringency instituted by the Sages with regard to waters of purification: they become impure when carried through the air over an impure object, although this has no source in the Torah.

Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar’s proof from a menstruant is sound. The water sprinkled upon her becomes impure before it reaches the menstruant, from the moment it passes through the air above the body of the menstruant. Nevertheless, it is fit to be sprinkled upon her. This proves that waters of purification that became impure before sprinkling remain fit for sprinkling and purification.

As we learned in the Mishna: If one was standing outside an oven

that was situated near a wall, and he was standing behind the oven, meaning that the oven intervened between him and the wall,

and there was a creeping animal in

the interior of the

oven.

And he extended

this person

his hand to the window

in the wall,

and took

from it

the flask,

a vessel of a certain measure containing waters of purification,

and carried it over the mouth of the oven

above its airspace,

Rabbi Akiva declares it impure, and the Sages declare it pure. And this is the basis of their dispute: Rabbi Akiva maintains

that waters of purification located in the air above an impure object

are considered

as though they are resting

upon

the impure object, and the water becomes impure.

And the Sages maintain: It is not considered as though it were resting there.

Rabbi Elazar, who brought proof from the case of a menstruant, holds in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, his teacher.

And Abaye challenged Rabba

from the following beraita:

Rabbi Akiva concedes that, in the case of sprinkling that was carried over an impure earthenware vessel or over an impure surface on which one lies or sits,

when one was sprinkling upon an impure person and the sprinkling water passed through the air above an impure object,

it is pure,

the sprinkling water.

For there is nothing that conveys impurity above

through the air

as it does below,

through contact,

except for an olive-bulk of a corpse [

which conveys impurity through a tent,]

and all other objects that form a tent

and convey impurity through a tent,

including a stone afflicted with leprosy,

which likewise conveys impurity through a tent.

Rabbi Akiva disagreed only in the case of the flask, despite the fact that he carried the flask containing the waters of purification over an object that does not convey impurity through a tent, as the reason is explained below.

Rather, Abaye said: Everyone agrees

that air above a source of impurity

is not considered as though the object were resting there.

And here, this is the basis of the dispute

between Rabbi Akiva and the Sages:

Rabbi Akiva maintains: We issue a decree lest

while carrying it over the mouth of the oven he

place

the flask inside the oven containing the creeping animal. Therefore, they decreed impurity upon a flask carried over the mouth of the oven.

And the Sages maintain: We do not issue such a decree.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes in the case of sprinkling,

since one does not carry the water but throws it; if it passes over a source of impurity, it remains pure,

because once it has emerged

from his hand,

it has emerged,

and he cannot place it inside the oven. Therefore, there is no reason to issue a decree as in the case of the flask, lest he place it there.

This is difficult for Rabba, who said that Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion in accordance with Rabbi Akiva. For in the case of sprinkling over the air above a menstruant, Rabbi Akiva agrees that the water does not become impure until it touches the menstruant herself. How, then, could Rabbi Elazar derive from that case that waters of purification that became impure before sprinkling purify?

The Gemara now considers the matter:

And Rabbi Elazar,

who brought proof from the case of a menstruant concerning waters of purification that became impure,

and the Rabbis

who said that this is not a proof [the disputants of Rabbi Elazar, whose statements were not included in the beraita cited above],

what is the basis of their dispute?

And we explain:

Abaye said: They disagree over whether one may derive,

whether it is possible to compare

prior impurity,

such as waters of purification that became impure before they were sprinkled, with

impurity that occurs at that moment,

such as the sprinkling upon a menstruant, where the impurity of the water and the sprinkling occur simultaneously;

they disagree:

One master,

Rabbi Elazar,

maintains—

one may derive

prior impurity from impurity that occurs at that moment. Therefore, he brought proof concerning waters of purification that became impure before sprinkling from the case of a menstruant. And according to his view, the blood of a ḥatat that splashes onto an impure garment does not require laundering, because impurity at the time of falling is considered equivalent to impurity that preceded the falling.

And one master,

the Rabbis,

maintains—

one may not derive

prior impurity from impurity that occurs at that moment. Therefore, one cannot derive from the sprinkling upon a menstruant [where the impurity of the water occurs at the time of sprinkling] concerning waters of purification that became impure before they were sprinkled.

And according to their view, the blood of a ḥatat that splashes onto an impure garment requires laundering, because impurity at the time of falling is not comparable to impurity that preceded the falling.

It is thus demonstrated that Rami bar Ḥama’s question—whether the blood of a ḥatat that splashes onto an impure garment requires laundering—depends, according to Rabba, on the dispute between Rabbi Elazar [who maintains that it does not require laundering] and the Rabbis [who maintain that it does], as Abaye explained to him: Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis disagree over whether prior impurity may be derived from impurity that occurs at that moment.

Rava said: Everyone agrees that one may not derive

prior impurity from impurity that occurs at that moment, even according to Rabbi Elazar.

And here, this is the basis of their dispute:

Rabbi Elazar maintains:

a.

The sprinkling

of waters of purification

requires a measure

to effect purification. b.

And separate sprinklings combine.

If one did not sprinkle the requisite measure in a single sprinkling, he sprinkles a second time in order to complete the measure.

When the first sprinkling of waters of purification, which did not contain the requisite measure, fell upon the menstruant, it was not yet a sprinkling capable of purifying her from corpse impurity. And although the water of the first sprinkling became impure when it touched the menstruant, nevertheless the first sprinkling subsequently combines with the second sprinkling to complete the requisite measure.

This demonstrates that waters of purification that became impure before sprinkling purify.

And the Rabbis maintain: Sprinkling does not require a measure,

and the entire sprinkling was completed with the first sprinkling. Therefore, no conclusion concerning prior impurity can be derived from it, because in the case of a menstruant the impurity occurs at that moment, and one may not derive prior impurity from impurity that occurs at that moment.

We learned in the Mishna:

Disqualified ḥatat blood does not require laundering,

and the Gemara brings a source for the Mishna’s ruling in the following beraita:

The Sages taught:

With regard to laundering garments from ḥatat blood, it is stated: “And that which is sprinkled

of its blood

upon the garment.” We expound: “Of its blood” is a limitation, and it comes to exclude and teach:

Of the blood of a valid offering, but not of the blood of a disqualified offering!

Rabbi Yaakov says:

If it

had a time when it was fit

for the blood to be sprinkled—that is, the ḥatat was performed validly and became disqualified only after its blood had been received for sprinkling—

and then became disqualified,

such as if its blood remained overnight, became impure, or left its prescribed area,

its blood requires laundering.

If it did not have a time when it was fit

for sprinkling, because it became disqualified before the blood was received,

and became disqualified,

such as if it was slaughtered outside its designated time or outside its designated area, or disqualified persons received its blood,

its blood does not require laundering.

And Rabbi Shimon says: Whether this one

had a time when it was fit

or that one

did not have a time when it was fit,

its blood does not require laundering.

What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion? It is written:

“Every male among the priests shall eat

it,”

and “it” is a limitation, stated after the verse concerning laundering, scouring, and rinsing.

And it is written, “of its blood,”

which is also a limitation, and these two limitations come to teach:

One excludes a case in which it had a time when it was fit, and one excludes a case in which it did not have a time when it was fit.

And Rabbi Yaakov

expounds

“it”—

to exclude teruma,

whose absorption into a vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, as is written immediately beforehand.

And Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning, as he says:

Vessels in which

lesser sacrificial offerings were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and all the more so

a vessel in which

teruma

was cooked does not require scouring and rinsing, since the sanctity of teruma is less than that of lesser sacrificial offerings. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, no special verse is needed to exclude teruma, and consequently “it” is available to exclude disqualified blood that had a time when it was fit, which does not require laundering.

Mishna:

If

ḥatat blood

splashed from the neck

of the animal

onto the garment, it does not require laundering,

since the blood is not yet fit for sprinkling.

And likewise, if blood of a sin-offering splashed

from the horn

of the altar, which had already been sprinkled and is no longer fit for sprinkling,

or from the base,

or it splashed from the residual blood that is destined to be poured onto the base [even though it had not yet been poured, since the four applications had been performed, and residual blood does not require laundering],

it does not require laundering,

since the blood had already been sprinkled on the altar.

Was spilled

the blood from the animal’s throat

onto the floor

of the Temple courtyard,

and they collected it

from the floor,

it does not require laundering

the blood that splashed onto the garment, because it was disqualified for sprinkling. For this is the general rule:

Only blood that was received

from the animal’s throat

in a vessel

of service

and is fit for sprinkling

Gemara:

The reason for the ruling of the Mishna is explained in the following two baraitot:

The Sages taught: Could one say that if the blood splashed

from

the throat

of the animal

onto the garment, it should require laundering? The verse states: “That is sprinkled

of its blood onto the garment,” and we derive:

I stated this to you only with regard to blood fit for sprinkling

—that is, blood received in a vessel!

It was taught in another baraita: Could one say that if it splashed from the horn or from the base it should require laundering? The verse states: “That is sprinkled,”

which is standing ready to be sprinkled, and we derive:

excluding this blood, which has already been sprinkled.

We learned in the Mishna:

“It was spilled onto the floor, and so on.”