Zevachim 94a — the Talmud in English

From where is it derived to include

that if the blood spattered upon

, a sack,

made from the fleece of goats,

and all types of garments

[shira’im, kilakh, and serikin] that they too require washing

? The verse states: “which is upon it, it shall be washed.”

Could I say that I include leather once it has been stripped

immediately, without any processing, so that it too requires washing

? The verse states: “a garment.”

And we expound:

Just as a garment is something that can receive impurity,

since Rabbi Elazar learned the garment mentioned concerning washing from the garment mentioned concerning creeping creatures [Leviticus 11:31–32], which can receive impurity and does not require intention,

so too, every

garment mentioned in the verse is specifically

something that can receive impurity.

Thus, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse also speaks of a garment fit to receive impurity, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar it refers only to a garment that can receive impurity.

And the Gemara discusses:

What is the difference between them,

which garment is this that is “fit” to receive impurity but does not receive it, such that according to Rabbi Yehuda it too is included in the verse and requires washing

? Abaye said: A cloth

a piece of fabric

smaller than three

three by three fingerbreadths

is the difference between them. The one who says

that the law of washing depends on

being fit

to receive impurity,

this too is fit

to receive impurity, through

for if he wishes, he can assign it,

designating it for use in repairing his tunic; and if he designates it, it again receives impurity.

The one who says

that the law of washing applies specifically to

something that can receive impurity

[and “fit” is not sufficient],

in any event, it is not yet capable of receiving impurity

and it does not require washing.

Rava said:

There is another possible case of a garment fit to receive impurity but not receiving it:

a garment concerning which he formed an intention for a figure,

for he intended to wear it only after embroidering an embroidery upon it,

is the difference between them.

The one who says

that the law of washing depends on

being fit

to receive impurity,

this too is fit

to receive impurity through

for if he wishes, he can nullify his intention

to embroider the garment, and then its production is completed and it receives impurity.

The one who says

that the law of washing depends on

something that can receive impurity,

and “fit” is not sufficient,

at present,

as long as he has not nullified his intention,

it is not capable of receiving impurity,

and it does not require washing.

Rava said:

There is another possible case:

a mat,

a carpet made from a garment,

concerning which he formed an intention to scrape it,

to scrub it and smooth it.

The one who says

that the law of washing depends on

being fit

to receive impurity,

this too,

the mat that still requires scraping,

is fit

to receive impurity through intention, if he decides to use it without scraping.

The one who says

that the law of washing applies specifically to

something that can receive impurity

specifically,

this does not receive impurity until they scrape it.

And as long as they have not scraped it, it does not require washing.

And was it not taught

in accordance with Rava’s words, that a mat without scraping does not receive impurity until he scrapes it [or nullifies his intention], as it was taught:

Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: A mat concerning which he formed an intention to scrape it is pure until he scrapes it.

We learned in the Mishna:

It requires washing only the place of the blood.

And we raised it:

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught: One might say that if

the blood of a sin-offering

spattered upon part of the garment, the entire garment should require washing?

The verse states: “which is sprinkled

upon it”—this is a superfluous expression, since it was already written once above in the same verse, “and that upon which any of its blood is sprinkled”; and we expound:

I said to you

that it requires washing

only the place of the blood.

We learned in the Mishna: It requires washing only

something that is fit to receive impurity.

And we explain:

The anonymous

Mishna is

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the law of washing depends on being fit, even though it does not yet receive impurity.

And we further learned in the Mishna,

“and fit for washing.”

And we explain:

To exclude a utensil

of wood, a utensil of metal, and hard leather utensils,

it is a matter of scraping,

for they are scraped and not washed.

We learned in the Mishna:

Both the garment, and the sack, and the leather.

And we challenge:

Is this to say that leather is subject to washing?

And we raise a contradiction

from that which we learned concerning the labor of Shabbat:

If there was upon it,

upon a pillow of cloth,

a stain,

dirt from spittle or excrement,

he wipes it with a rag

on Shabbat, and he does not place water upon it to remove it, because he is washing it, and this is a primary labor [because of bleaching].

And if

it was

this stain upon a pillow

of leather, he places water upon it

by rinsing

until it is eliminated.

And it is proven that there is no washing with leather, since it teaches, “he places water upon it.”

And we answer:

Abaye said: It is not difficult. This

which it teaches on Shabbat, that there is no washing with leather, is according to

the Rabbis. And this

which it teaches in our Mishna, that there is washing with leather, is according to

Others:

For it was taught: The garment, the sack, and the leather

upon which the blood of a sin-offering spattered

—he washes them.

The utensil and the leather

upon which blood fell

—he scrapes them.

Others say: The garment, the sack, and the leather—he washes them; and the utensil—he scrapes it.

And it is proven that the Rabbis hold that leather is not subject to washing, whereas according to Others there is washing with leather.

And we raised it:

According to whom does this statement of Rav Hiyya bar Ashi accord: Many times

many times

I would stand before Rav,

I stood before Rav,

and I would rinse his shoes,

and I washed his shoes

with water,

with water on Shabbat.

According to whom

does it accord

? According to the Rabbis,

who hold that leather is not subject to washing; therefore, Rav permitted Rav Hiyya to wash his shoes.

And we challenge:

Rava said: Is there anyone who says that leather is not subject to washing? But it is written

concerning the affliction of leprosy

: “And the garment or the warp or the woof or any leather utensil that you shall wash.”

Evidently, leather is subject to washing!

Rather, Rava said: The verse

concerning afflictions

and our Mishna

concerning the blood of a sin-offering, which teaches that leather requires washing, speak

of soft

leather, which everyone agrees can be washed.

And when

the Rabbis and Others disagree, they disagree

about hard

leather, whether it is subject to washing.

And we challenge:

But Rav Hiyya said: Many times

many times

I would stand before Rav, and I would rinse his shoes with water.

And seemingly, his shoes were made of soft leather. But Rava said that everyone agrees that there is washing with soft leather, so how did Rav permit Rav Hiyya to wash his shoes on Shabbat?

And we answer: Rav’s shoes were made of

hard

leather, and what he permitted was according to

the Rabbis,

who hold that there is no washing with hard leather.

Rava then said: The matter that I said

above

—let us not say it to explain the verse,

that we should arise and establish the verse stated concerning afflictions

as having been written concerning soft leather,

that the verse speaks specifically of soft leather, for the verse is written without specification, whether concerning soft or hard leather.

Do we not deal

in the verse

with utensils of aksalagnus,

tanned leather utensils

coming from overseas,

which are hard utensils

, and the Merciful One says that washing is required!

It follows that even hard leather is subject to washing according to everyone.

Rather, Rava said: With regard to leprosy, since it sprouts from its very substance,

the affliction of leprosy sprouts from the substance of the garment itself

it penetrates it,

the affliction penetrates into the garment,

and makes it

the garment becomes

soft,

so that it is subject to washing according to everyone. Therefore, the verse concerning leprosy speaks even of hard leather [since through the leprosy it becomes soft], and our Mishna too speaks of soft leather, while the dispute between the Rabbis and Others concerns hard leather.