Zevachim 93b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

Why, then, do I need this additional statement?

Why do I need to repeat the rule that laundering is required only for blood that was received in a vessel, when the tanna already taught at the beginning that if the blood was spilled onto the floor and he collected it, laundering is not required?!

And we answer:

He is stating the reason: What is the reason that if it was spilled onto the floor and he collected it, laundering is not required? —

Because laundering is required only for blood that was received in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling!

We learned in the Mishna:

And is fit for sprinkling.

And we raised it:

To exclude what?

What matter does the rule that says that laundering applies only to blood fit for sprinkling come to exclude?

And we explain:

To exclude one who received less than

the measure of

sprinkling in this vessel, and less than the measure of sprinkling in that vessel,

and afterward returned and mixed them together in one vessel.

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Ḥalafta bar Shaul says: He sanctified

the water of the purification by placing the ashes of the cow in it, and the water was

less than

the measure of

sprinkling,

which is enough for the heads of the stalks of the hyssop to be immersed and for him to sprinkle,

in this vessel, and less than the measure of sprinkling in that vessel —

he did not sanctify it!

Even though he afterward returned and mixed them.

And they raised a dilemma before them: With regard to the blood

of an internal sin-offering, such as goats and bulls that are burned, which require sprinkling on the curtain seven times, and he received the measure of three sprinklings in this vessel, and afterward received four sprinklings in another vessel, and afterward returned and mixed them,

what is the law?

Is this considered receiving or not?

Could it be said that, with regard to the water of purification,

it is a halakha

that we do not combine them,

and we do not derive from a halakha

laws concerning other matters, since one does not reason from a halakha?

Or perhaps,

there,

there,

with regard to the water of purification,

what is the reason

that less than the required measure is not combined? Because

it is written, “And he shall immerse in the water,”

and it was not stated, “And he shall immerse water.” This indicates that the sprinkler must immerse the bundle of hyssop with which he sprinkles the water of purification in the water mentioned earlier in the passage with regard to sanctification, such that at the time of sanctification there is in it the measure of immersion.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the blood of a sin-offering,

it is written, “And he shall immerse

the priest his finger

in the blood,”

and this indicates that from the outset there must be the measure of immersion in the first blood.

Come and hear: Rabbi Zerika said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Even with blood, he did not sanctify it!

Since the verse “And he shall immerse in the blood,” which is written with regard to the blood of a sin-offering, is analogous to “And he shall immerse in the water,” which is written with regard to the water of purification.

Rava said: It was taught

in a beraita that with blood he did not sanctify it, because it is stated in the Torah:

“And he shall immerse,” and we expound: and not wipe!

He must not wipe his finger on the rim of the vessel or on its walls [because in such a manner it is not called immersing].

And likewise it was stated

“in the blood,”

and we expound:

until there is in the blood, from the outset, the measure of immersion.

The meaning of “in the blood” is that from the outset there must be the measure of immersion in the first blood.

And likewise it was stated, “And he shall sprinkle

from the blood,”

and we expound that he shall sprinkle

from the blood

mentioned

in the matter,

the blood from which he sprinkled in the first immersion; from it he shall perform all seven sprinklings, and he must return and immerse his finger in it for every sprinkling.

And since it was necessary to write only “And he shall sprinkle seven times,” therefore “from the blood” is a superfluous verse, and we expound from it to exclude sprinkling from the remnants of blood on the finger. Rather, he must return and immerse his finger each time in the blood in the vessel.

And we explain:

And it was necessary to write “and he shall immerse,” and it was necessary to write “in the blood.”

For had the Merciful One written “and he shall immerse”

alone,

I would have said

that it would be valid

even though there was not the measure of immersion from the outset

at the time of receiving,

since there is the measure of immersion at the time of immersion; therefore

the Merciful One wrote “in the blood,”

which indicates the blood mentioned with regard to receiving, for from the outset the measure of immersion is required.

And had the Merciful One written “in the blood”

alone,

I would have said even wiping,

that he wiped his finger, would be valid for sprinkling. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “and he shall immerse,”

and not wiping.

And we raised it:

“From the blood” in the matter,

as brought in the beraita [that he must return and immerse his finger for every sprinkling],

to exclude what?

And we explain:

Rava said: To exclude the remnants on the finger 21 ,

that he shall perform all the sprinklings from that blood in the vessel and not from the remnants on the finger.

This supports Rabbi Elazar, for Rabbi Elazar said: The remnants on the finger are invalid

for sprinkling from them on the curtain.

Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rava: Your student said, Rav Amram said: We learned

a refutation of Rabbi Elazar:

If he was sprinkling

from the blood of internal sin-offerings,

and a sprinkling spattered from his hand

onto a garment

before he sprinkled,

when the blood that fell on the garment was still fit for the internal sprinkling, it is

subject to laundering.

But if a sprinkling spattered from his hand onto the garment

after he sprinkled,

when it was already no longer fit for sprinkling,

it is not subject to laundering.

And we raised it:

Is it not that this is what he is saying:

If blood fell onto the garment

before he finished sprinkling

all the sprinklings,

it is subject to laundering,

even if it spattered between one sprinkling and the next from the remnants on the finger!

And it is proven that the remnants on the finger are valid for sprinkling, for if they were invalid, why would it be subject to laundering? And if

after he finished sprinkling

all the sprinklings, blood fell onto the garment,

it is not subject to laundering,

because it is not considered blood fit for sprinkling.

And from here there is a refutation of Rabbi Elazar, who invalidated the sprinkling of the remnants on the finger!?

And we reject this:

No!

It cannot be explained this way; rather,

this is what he is saying:

If the blood fell onto the garment

before the sprinkling left his hand, it is subject to laundering.

But if blood from his finger spattered onto the garment

after the sprinkling left his hand 22 ,

when that blood is the remnants on the finger,

it is not subject to laundering!

For the remnants on the finger are invalid, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar.

Abaye raised an objection to him:

We learned in the Mishna concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the red cow:

When he finished sprinkling

the seven sprinklings on the Mount of Olives, he would

wipe his hand on the body of the cow,

because even the blood of the cow must be burned together with the cow.

And we infer:

When he finished

sprinkling,

yes. If he did not finish, he did not

wipe his hand, but could return and perform another sprinkling without wiping his hand, even though there were on it remnants of blood on the finger from the previous sprinkling.

Evidently, the remnants on the finger are valid!? And we answer:

He said to him,

this is its explanation:

When he finished

sprinkling, he

wipes

all

his hand on the body of the cow. If he did not finish

sprinkling, he

wipes his finger

between every sprinkling and the next, so that he will not return and sprinkle from the remnants on the finger.

And we challenge:

Granted, when he finished

sprinkling, he

wipes

all

his hand on the body of the cow, as it is stated, “And he shall burn the cow before his eyes,”

for the cow is burned before him after he descends from the mountain.

But his finger

between each sprinkling and the next,

with what does he wipe it?

Does he descend from the Mount of Olives between each sprinkling and the next to wipe it on the body of the cow?

Abaye said,

he wipes his finger

on the rim of the basin

in which he received its blood and from which he performs the seven sprinklings.

As it is written

with regard to service vessels,

“golden bowls,”

that is, basins, and they were called so because the priest who threw the blood would wipe his finger on it.

Mishna:

a.

If

the blood

spattered on the hide

of the animal

before it was flayed,

before the hide was removed from the animal,

it is not subject to laundering,

for we require something fit to receive impurity without a deficiency of work. But hide that has not been removed lacks the work [of flaying] necessary for receiving impurity.

But if it spattered on the hide

after it was flayed,

after it was removed from the animal,

the hide is subject

to laundering,

the words of Rabbi Judah,

since once the hide has been removed it is fit to receive impurity if he intends to use it as it is, and he holds that a deficiency of intention is not a deficiency.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even after it was flayed

the hide

is not subject to laundering,

for he holds that we require something actually fit to receive impurity, and that it not even lack intention.

b.

Laundering is required only for the place of the blood

and not for the entire garment,

and for something that is fit to receive impurity,

even though it lacks intention, provided that it does not lack work; this is [the unstated rule] according to Rabbi Judah,

and fit for laundering,

to exclude a wooden vessel or hard leather, for which there is no laundering but only scraping.

c.

Both the garment, and the sack, and the hide are subject:

to laundering in a holy place

in the Temple courtyard.

And the breaking of an earthenware vessel

in which the flesh of a sin-offering was cooked

in a holy place

in the Temple courtyard,

and scouring and rinsing in a copper vessel

in which the flesh of a sin-offering was cooked

in a holy place,

in the Temple courtyard.

d.

This is the stringency

of the law of laundering

with regard to a sin-offering

over other

most holy offerings,

for the law of laundering a garment on which blood spattered applies only to the blood of a sin-offering and not to the blood of other offerings, even most holy offerings.

Gemara:

And we raised it concerning this:

from where are these matters

that hide which has not been flayed does not require laundering?

For the Sages taught:

It is written, “And that upon which any of its blood is sprinkled”

“the garment.”

I have only a garment; from where to include

that if the blood of a sin-offering was splashed upon

hide once it had been flayed

that it requires laundering?

The verse states: “That upon which it is sprinkled, you shall launder.”

Could I include

that if blood was splashed upon

hide which had not been flayed

that it too should require laundering?

The verse states: “garment,”

and we expound:

Just as a garment is fit to receive impurity,

for you have no small garment whose name is garment that is not fit to receive impurity if one intended it to be a utensil and to use it as it is—for it is then obligated in laundering,

so, too, anything fit to receive impurity.

And hide once it has been flayed is fit to receive impurity if one intended to use it as a rug, to lie upon it as it is. But so long as the hide has not been flayed, it is not fit to be a utensil and does not receive impurity,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Elazar says:

It is written

“garment.” I have only a garment

of wool and linen, because ordinary garments in the Torah are made of wool and linen.