Zevachim 93a — the Talmud in English

Rami bar Hama asked Rav Hisda: If it spattered

the blood

onto an impure garment,

and the blood became impure through its contact with the garment,

what is [the law]?

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

Or perhaps, since at the time of its falling onto the garment the blood was fit, it requires laundering, for its disqualification and its becoming subject to laundering come simultaneously.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: From the fact that Rami bar Hama asked

him

this, infer

that it was obvious to him that if the blood had become impure before it spattered onto the garment, it certainly would not require laundering, even though it had a time of fitness, for he holds that a sin-offering that

had a time of fitness and became disqualified, its blood does not require laundering.

But when the blood actually became impure at the time of its falling onto the garment, concerning this he raised a doubt: Do we say

these matters

that disqualified blood does not require laundering apply specifically

when one follows the other,

that it became disqualified and afterward spattered?

But

when it spattered 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 Hisda to Rami bar Hama: This question depends

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

who explains their dispute in this manner,

and as Abaye answers

before Rabba, and Rabba acknowledged his view.

For it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: The water of purification

from the ashes of the red heifer, which is sprinkled upon one impure with corpse impurity to purify him from his impurity, even though

it became impure

before it was sprinkled upon one impure with corpse impurity, nevertheless it

purifies

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

And proof that water of purification that became impure is fit for sprinkling is

for a menstruant

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

is sprinkled upon

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

Now, this water of purification becomes impure through its contact with the menstruant, and nevertheless it purifies her from corpse impurity. And there is from here proof concerning water of purification that became impure: nevertheless, it purifies him, as though it had not become impure.

And Rabba said: Rabbi Elazar,

who brings proof from a menstruant, even though this is not comparable, since in the case of a menstruant, the sprinkling of the water upon her and its becoming impure occur simultaneously, and one cannot bring proof from this for water of purification that became impure before sprinkling, necessarily

stated it according to the method of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, for he says: The carrying of a vessel

containing water of purification through the air

over an impure place

is considered that this vessel is

placed

upon the impurity;

it is considered

and the vessel becomes impure, and the water of purification within it becomes impure.

And it is a special stringency concerning water of purification, of rabbinic origin, that it becomes impure when carried through the air over an impure object, something that has no source in the Torah.

And according to this, Rabbi Elazar properly proved from a menstruant. For the water sprinkled upon her becomes impure before it reaches the menstruant, from the moment that it passes through the air above the body of the menstruant. And if nevertheless it is fit to sprinkle upon her, there is proof from here that water of purification which became impure before sprinkling is fit to sprinkle and purify.

For we learned in the Mishna: If he was standing outside the oven

which was situated close to a wall, and he was standing behind the oven, that is, the oven intervened between him and the wall,

and a creeping creature was in

the interior of the

oven.

And he extended

this person

his hand to the window

in the wall,

and took

from it

the log,

a vessel of a certain measure, containing water of purification,

and carried it over the mouth of the oven

above, through its airspace,

Rabbi Akiva declares it impure, and the Sages declare it pure. And in this they disagree: Rabbi Akiva holds:

water of purification found in the air above an impure object

is considered placed

upon the impure object

it is considered,

and the water becomes impure.

And the Sages hold: It is not considered placed.

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

And Abaye raised an objection to Rabba

from that which was taught in a baraita:

Rabbi Akiva concedes concerning sprinkling that one carried over an impure earthenware vessel, or over an impure bedding or seat,

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

that it is pure,

the water of sprinkling.

For you have nothing that renders impure above

in the air

as below,

through contact,

except an olive-bulk of a corpse

[which renders impure through tent impurity],

and all other things that overshadow

which render impure through tent impurity,

to include a stone afflicted with leprosy,

which likewise renders impure through tent impurity.

And Rabbi Akiva disagreed only concerning a log, and even though he carried the log with the water of purification over something that does not render impure through tent impurity, as the reason is explained below.

Rather, Abaye said: Everyone

agrees that airspace above impurity

is not considered placed.

And here, in this, they disagree,

Rabbi Akiva and the Sages:

For Rabbi Akiva holds: We issue a decree lest

while carrying it over the mouth of the oven he

place

the log inside the oven in which the creeping creature is; and for this reason they decreed impurity upon the log that he carried over the mouth of the oven.

And the Sages hold: We do not issue a decree.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes concerning sprinkling,

for he does not carry it but throws it, that if it passes over impurity, it is pure,

since once it has gone out

from his hand,

it has gone out,

and it is not in his power to put it into the oven, so there is no place to issue a decree as with the log, lest he place it there.

And this is difficult for Rabba, who said, “Rabbi Elazar stated it according to the method of Rabbi Akiva.” For concerning sprinkling over the airspace of a menstruant, Rabbi Akiva concedes that it is not impure until it touches the menstruant herself. And how did he prove from it concerning water of purification that became impure before sprinkling, that it purifies?

And now we address the matter:

And Rabbi Elazar,

who brought proof from a menstruant for water of purification that became impure,

and the Rabbis

who say that it is not proof [the disputants of Rabbi Elazar, whose words were not brought in the baraita cited above],

in what do they disagree?

And we explain:

Abaye said: They disagree concerning whether one may infer,

whether it is possible to compare

an earlier impurity,

such as water of purification that became impure before its sprinkling,

with impurity at that same time,

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

they disagree:

One master,

Rabbi Elazar,

holds—

one may infer

an earlier impurity from impurity at that same time. Therefore, he brought proof for water of purification that became impure before sprinkling from the case of a menstruant. And according to his method, the blood of a sin-offering that spattered onto an impure garment does not require laundering, for impurity at the time of falling is considered like impurity before falling.

And one master,

the Rabbis,

hold—

one may not infer

an earlier impurity from impurity at that same time. Therefore, one cannot learn from the sprinkling upon a menstruant [where the impurity of the water occurs at the time of sprinkling] concerning water of purification that became impure before its sprinkling.

And according to their method, the blood of a sin-offering that spattered onto an impure garment requires laundering, since impurity at that same time is not comparable to impurity before falling.

And it is proven that Rami bar Hama’s question, whether the blood of a sin-offering that spattered onto an impure garment requires laundering, depends upon the dispute between Rabbi Elazar [according to whom it does not require laundering] and the Rabbis [according to whose method it does require laundering], according to Rabba, and as Abaye explained to him: Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis disagree over whether one infers an earlier impurity from impurity at that same time.

Rava said: Everyone agrees that one does not infer

an earlier impurity from impurity at that same time, even according to Rabbi Elazar.

And here, in this, they disagree:

For Rabbi Elazar holds:

a.

The sprinkling

of water of purification

requires a measure

for purification. b.

And the sprinklings combine.

If he did not sprinkle the required measure in one sprinkling, he sprinkles another time in order to complete the measure.

And when the first sprinkling of water of purification, which did not contain the required measure, fell upon the menstruant, it was not yet a sprinkling for purifying from corpse impurity. And although the water of the first sprinkling became impure when the menstruant touched it, nevertheless the first sprinkling returns and combines with the second sprinkling to complete the measure of the sprinkling.

And it is proven that water of purification which became impure before sprinkling purifies.

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

and the entire sprinkling was completed with the first sprinkling, and one cannot learn from it concerning an earlier impurity, because in the case of a menstruant it is impurity at that same time, and one does not infer an earlier impurity from impurity at that same time.

We learned in the Mishna:

A disqualified sin-offering—its blood does not require laundering

and the Gemara brings a source for the words of the Mishna in the following baraita:

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning laundering garments from the blood of a sin-offering, “and whatever is sprinkled

from its blood

upon the garment.” And we expound: “from its blood” is an exclusion, and it comes to exclude and say:

From the blood of a fit [offering], but not from the blood of a disqualified [offering]!

Rabbi Yaakov says:

If

it had a time of fitness

for sprinkling the blood, for the sin-offering was performed validly and became disqualified only after its blood had been received for sprinkling,

and became disqualified,

such as if it remained overnight, or became impure, or went outside,

its blood requires laundering.

If it did not have a time of fitness

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 place, or disqualified persons received its blood,

its blood does not require laundering.

And Rabbi Shimon says: Whether this one,

which had a time of fitness,

or that one,

which did not have a time of fitness,

its blood does not require laundering.

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason? It is written, “Every male among the priests shall eat

it

,”

and “it” is an exclusion, following the verse concerning laundering, scouring, and rinsing.

And it is written, “from its blood,”

which is also an exclusion, and these two exclusions come to teach:

One [excludes] where it had a time of fitness, and one [excludes] where it did not have a time of fitness.

And Rabbi Yaakov

expounded: “

it”

—

to exclude teruma,

for the absorption of teruma in a vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, as it is written immediately before it. And Rabbi Shimon follows his own reasoning, for he says

that vessels in which

lesser sacred 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 lesser than that of lesser sacred offerings. Therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, there is no need for a special verse to exclude teruma, and thus “it” is superfluous for him, to exclude disqualified blood that had a time of fitness, which does not require laundering.

Mishna:

If

the blood of a sin-offering

spattered from the neck

of the animal

onto the garment, it does not require laundering,

since the blood is still not fit for sprinkling.

And likewise, if the 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 has not yet been poured, since the four applications have been performed, and remnants do not require laundering],

it does not require laundering,

since the blood has already been sprinkled on the altar.

If

the blood was spilled from the animal’s neck

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 has become unfit for sprinkling, for this is the general rule:

Nothing requires laundering except blood that was received

from the animal’s neck

in a

service vessel

and is fit for sprinkling.

Gemara:

The reason for the words of the Mishna is explained in the following two beraitot:

The Sages taught: Could one say that blood splashed

from the blood

from the neck

of the animal

onto the garment should require laundering? The verse states, “which is sprinkled

from its blood onto the garment,” and we expound:

I said this to you only concerning what is fit for sprinkling,

namely, blood that was received in a vessel!

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

which stands ready for sprinkling, and we expound:

to exclude this one, which has already been sprinkled.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If it was spilled onto the floor, etc.”