Zevachim 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection:

Why do I need this additional statement?

Why does it need to teach the principle that laundering is required only for blood that was received in a vessel, when the tanna already taught in the first clause that if the blood spilled onto the floor and was collected, it does not require laundering

?

And we answer:

He is stating the reason. What is the reason that if the blood spilled onto the floor and was collected, it does not require laundering? —

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 an objection:

To exclude what?

What case is excluded by the principle that laundering applies only to blood fit for sprinkling?

And we explain:

To exclude one who received less than the amount required for sprinkling

in this vessel, and less than the amount required for sprinkling in that vessel,

and then returned and mixed them together in a single vessel.

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

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

less than

the measure required for

sprinkling,

which is enough for the tips of the hyssop stalks to be immersed and the water sprinkled,

in this vessel, and less than the amount required for sprinkling in that vessel —

he has not sanctified it!

Even if he subsequently mixed them together.

And they raised a dilemma: With regard to the blood

of an inner sin-offering, such as goats and bulls that are burned, which require sprinkling on the curtain seven times, and he received the amount required for three sprinklings in this vessel, and then received the amount required for four sprinklings in another vessel, and then returned and mixed them together,

what is the halakha?

Is this considered valid receiving, or not?

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

it is a halakha

that the separate amounts are not combined,

and we do not derive other matters from a halakha

since legal rulings are not derived from a halakha transmitted in that manner?

Or perhaps

the reason there,

there,

with regard to the water of the purification rite,

what is the reason

that amounts less than the required measure are not combined? It is because

it is written: “and he shall dip in the water,”

and it does not say: “and he shall dip water.” This indicates that the one who sprinkles must immerse the bundle of hyssop with which he sprinkles the water of the purification rite in the water mentioned earlier in the passage with regard to sanctification, and that at the time of sanctification there must be enough water for immersion.

If so,

here too,

with regard to the blood of a sin-offering,

it is written: “and he shall dip

the priest his finger

in the blood,”

indicating that the blood must initially contain the amount required for immersion.

Come and hear: Rabbi Zerika said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Even with regard to blood, he has not sanctified it!

Since the verse “and he shall dip in the blood,” stated with regard to the blood of a sin-offering, is analogous to “and he shall dip in the water,” stated with regard to the water of the purification rite.

Rava said: It was taught

in a beraita that with regard to blood he has not sanctified it, because the Torah says

“and he shall dip,” and we expound: and not merely absorb!

He may not wipe his finger against the rim or the sides of the vessel, since in such a manner it is not called dipping.

Likewise, it is stated

“in the blood,”

and we expound:

until the blood initially contains the amount required for immersion.

The meaning of “in the blood” is that the blood must initially contain the amount required for immersion.

Likewise, it is stated: “And he shall sprinkle

from the blood,”

and we expound that he shall sprinkle

from the blood

mentioned

in the passage: From the blood into which he dipped the first time he shall perform all seven sprinklings, meaning that he must dip his finger in it again for each sprinkling.

Since it was not necessary to write anything other than “and he shall sprinkle seven times,” “from the blood” is therefore a superfluous verse, and we derive from it the exclusion that he may not sprinkle from the remnants of blood on his finger; rather, he must dip his finger anew each time in the blood in the vessel.

And we explain:

It was necessary to write “and he shall dip,” and it was necessary to write “in the blood.”

Had the Merciful One written “and he shall dip”

alone,

I would have thought

that it would be valid

even though the amount required for immersion was not initially present

at the time of receiving,

since the amount required for immersion was present at the time of immersion. Therefore,

the Merciful One

wrote “in the blood,”

which indicates the blood mentioned with regard to receiving, for which the amount required for immersion must be present initially.

And had the Merciful One written “in the blood”

alone,

I would have thought that merely absorbing the blood would suffice,

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

the Merciful One wrote “and he shall dip,”

indicating that wiping is not sufficient.

And we raised an objection:

“From the blood” mentioned in the passage,

as cited in the beraita, requiring him to dip his finger again for each sprinkling,

to exclude what?

And we explain:

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

so that all the sprinklings must be performed from that blood in the vessel, and not from the remnants on his finger.

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

for sprinkling from them upon the curtain.

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

a refutation of Rabbi Elazar:

If he was sprinkling

from the blood of inner sin-offerings,

and a sprinkling splashed from his hand

onto a garment

before he had sprinkled,

when the blood that fell on the garment was still fit for the inner sprinklings, it

requires laundering.

But if a sprinkling splashed from his hand onto the garment

after he had sprinkled,

when it was no longer fit for sprinkling,

it does not require laundering.

And we raised an objection:

Is that not what he is saying: If blood fell on the garment

before he finished sprinkling

all the sprinklings,

it requires laundering,

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

This proves that the remnants on the finger are valid for sprinkling, for if they were invalid, why would the garment require laundering? But if,

after he finished sprinkling

all the sprinklings, blood fell on the garment,

it does not require laundering,

since it is not considered blood fit for sprinkling.

This is therefore a refutation of Rabbi Elazar, who invalidated sprinkling from the remnants on the finger

!

And we reject this:

No!

This cannot be explained in that manner. Rather,

this is what he is saying: If blood fell on the garment

before a sprinkling had left his hand, it requires laundering.

But if blood splashed from his finger onto the garment

after a sprinkling had left his hand 22 ,

after the sprinkling had left his hand 22 ,

it is the remnants on his finger,

and it does not require laundering!

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

Abaye raised an objection to him:

We learned in a Mishna with regard to sprinkling the blood of the red heifer:

After he finished sprinkling

the seven sprinklings on the Mount of Olives, he

wiped his hand on the body of the cow,

because the cow’s blood too must be burned together with the cow.

And we infer:

After he finished

sprinkling,

yes; if he had not finished, he did not

wipe his hand. Rather, he could return and perform another sprinkling without wiping his hand, even though remnants of the blood from the preceding sprinkling remained on it.

Apparently, the remnants on the finger are valid !?

And we answer:

He said to him:

This is its meaning:

After he finished

sprinkling, he

wipes

his entire hand on the body of the cow. If he had not finished

sprinkling, he

wipes his finger

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

And we ask:

Granted, after he finished

sprinkling, he

wipes

his entire

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

since the cow would be burned before him after he descended 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 basins,”

that is, basins, which were so called because the priest performing the throwing would wipe his finger on them.

Mishna:

1.

If

the blood

splashed onto the hide

of the animal

before it was flayed,

before the hide was removed from the animal,

it does not require laundering,

because we require an item capable of contracting impurity without the completion of an act of labor. But a hide that has not been flayed still requires an act of labor [flaying] before it can contract impurity.

But if it splashed onto the hide

after it was flayed,

after it was removed from the animal,

the hide requires

laundering,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

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

Rabbi Elazar says: Even after it was flayed

the hide

does not require laundering,

because he holds that we require an item actually fit to contract impurity, such that not even intention is lacking.

2.

Laundering is required only for the place of the blood

and not for the entire garment,

and for an item that is fit to contract impurity,

even though intention is lacking, provided that no act of labor is lacking; this is stated without qualification according to Rabbi Yehuda,

and is fit for laundering,

to exclude wooden vessels or hard leather, for which the relevant process is scraping rather than laundering.

3.

Both a garment, and a sack, and a hide require:

Laundering in a sacred place

in the Temple courtyard.

And the breaking of an earthenware vessel

in which the meat of a sin-offering was cooked

in a sacred place

in the Temple courtyard,

and rinsing and scouring in a copper vessel

in which the meat of a sin-offering was cooked

in a sacred place,

in the Temple courtyard.

4.

This is the stringency

of the law of laundering

with regard to a sin-offering

over that of the other

most sacred offerings,

for the law requiring the laundering of a garment onto which blood splashed applies only to the blood of a sin-offering, and not to the blood of other offerings, even other most sacred offerings.