Zevachim 94a (צד.) — the Talmud in English

From where is it derived that the verse includes

if the blood splashed onto

a sack,

made from goat hair,

and all types of garments

[fine wool, kalakh, and combed wool], which also require laundering

? The verse states: “that upon which it is splashed shall be laundered.”

One might have thought that I should include leather once it has been stripped

immediately, without any further processing, so that it too would require laundering

; the verse states: “a garment.”

And we derive:

Just as a garment is an item that can become impure,

since Rabbi Elazar learned the garment mentioned with regard to laundering from the garment mentioned with regard to creeping animals [Leviticus 11:31–32], which can become impure and does not require designation

so too, every

garment mentioned in the verse refers specifically to

an item that can become impure.

Thus, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse also concerns a garment fit to become impure, whereas according to Rabbi Elazar, it concerns only a garment that can become impure.

The Gemara asks:

What is the practical difference between them,

that is, what garment is “fit” to become impure but does not become impure, which according to Rabbi Yehuda is also included in the verse and requires laundering?

Abaye said: A piece of cloth

a piece of fabric

less than three

by three fingerbreadths

is the difference between them. The one who says

that the law of laundering depends on

being fit

to become impure

this one too is fit

to become impure, by means of

if he wishes, he can designate it for that purpose,

that is, he can set it aside for use in mending his tunic, and once he designates it, it can become impure.

The one who says

that the law of laundering applies specifically to

an item that can become impure

and that it is insufficient for it merely to be “fit”

in any event, it is not yet susceptible to impurity

and does not require laundering.

Rava said:

There is another possible example of a garment fit to become impure but not yet susceptible to impurity:

a garment that one designated for embroidery,

that is, he intended to wear it only after embroidering a design on it

is the difference between them.

The one who says

that the law of laundering depends on

being fit

to become impure

this one too is fit

to become impure, by means of

if he wishes, he can revoke his intention

to embroider the garment, in which case its production is complete and it can become impure.

The one who says

that the law of laundering depends on

an item that can become impure,

and that it is insufficient for it merely to be fit

at present,

as long as he has not revoked his intention

it is not susceptible to impurity,

and it does not require laundering.

Rava said:

There is another possible example:

a utzba,

a mat made of cloth

that one designated for scraping,

to rub and smooth it.

The one who says

that the law of laundering depends on

being fit

to become impure

this too,

the utzba that still requires scraping

is fit

to become impure through designation, if he decides to use it without scraping.

The one who says

that the law of laundering applies specifically to

an item that can become impure

and not merely to one that is fit to become impure

it does not become susceptible to impurity until they scrape it.

As long as they have not scraped it, it does not require laundering.

And it was taught

in accordance with Rava’s statement, that an utzba that has not been scraped cannot become impure until it is scraped [or until he revokes his intention], as it was taught

: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An utzba that one designated for scraping is pure until he scrapes it.

We learned in the Mishna:

It requires laundering only at the place of the blood.

And we raised a question about this:

From where are these matters derived?

As the Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if

the blood of a sin-offering

splashed onto part of the garment, the entire garment should require laundering.

The verse states: “upon which he splashes

the blood” — this is an extra phrase, since earlier in the same verse it already says, “and that upon which some of its blood is splashed.” And we derive

: I told you

that it requires laundering

only at the place of the blood.

We learned in the Mishna: It requires laundering only

an item that is fit to become impure.

And we explain:

The anonymous statement

of the Mishna is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the law of laundering depends on being fit to become impure, even though the item is not yet susceptible to impurity.

We also learned in the Mishna:

“And fit for laundering.”

And we explain:

To exclude a vessel

of wood, a metal vessel, and a vessel of hard leather

for which scraping is required,

as they are scraped rather than laundered.

We learned in the Mishna:

Both a garment, both a sack, and both leather.

And we challenge this:

Is this to say that leather is subject to laundering?

And we raise a contradiction

seemingly from what we learned concerning a labor of Shabbat

: If there was upon it,

upon a cloth cushion

a soiling,

a stain of saliva or excrement

he may wipe it with a rag

on Shabbat, but he may not pour water over it to remove it, because that constitutes laundering and is a primary category of labor [on account of whitening].

And if

it was

this soiling on a cushion

of leather, he may pour water over it

by rinsing

until it is removed.

And it is evident that leather is not subject to laundering, since it teaches: “He may pour water over it.”

And we answer:

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This

statement taught with regard to Shabbat, that leather is not subject to laundering, is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis. And this

statement taught in our Mishna, that leather is subject to laundering, is in accordance with the opinion of

Others:

As it was taught in a baraita: The garment, the sack, and the leather

onto which the blood of a sin-offering splashed

are laundered.

The vessel and the leather

onto which blood fell

are scraped.

Others say: The garment, the sack, and the leather are laundered, and the vessel is scraped.

It is evident that the Rabbis hold that leather is not subject to laundering, whereas according to Others, leather is subject to laundering.

And we raise a question about this:

In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rabbi Hiyya bar Ashi said: Many times

on many occasions

I would stand before Rav,

standing in Rav’s presence

and rinse his shoes for him,

washing his shoes

with water,

with water on Shabbat?

In accordance with whose opinion

does this practice accord

with the Rabbis,

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

And we challenge this:

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

with regard to the affliction of leprosy

“And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any leather vessel that you shall launder.”

Evidently, leather is subject to laundering!

Rather, Rava said: The verse

concerning afflictions

and our Mishna

concerning the blood of a sin-offering, which teaches that leather requires laundering, refer to

soft

leather, which everyone agrees can be laundered.

And when

the Rabbis and Others disagree, they disagree

with regard to hard

leather, whether it is subject to laundering.

And we raise a difficulty:

But Rabbi Hiyya said: Many times

on many occasions

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

Apparently, his shoes were made of soft leather. But Rava said that everyone agrees that soft leather is subject to laundering; how, then, did Rav permit Rabbi Hiyya to wash his shoes on Shabbat?

And we answer: Rav’s shoes were made of

hard

leather, and what he permitted was in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis,

who hold that hard leather is not subject to laundering.

Rava subsequently said: What I said earlier is not valid.

Previously,

let us not interpret the verse

that is, let us establish the verse stated with regard to afflictions

as referring only to soft leather,

meaning that the verse speaks specifically of soft leather, since the verse is written without qualification, whether with regard to soft leather or hard leather.

Are we not dealing

in the verse

with vessels of aksalagus,

tanned leather vessels

that come from overseas,

which are hard vessels

, and the Merciful One says that laundering is required!

Thus, even hard leather is subject to laundering according to everyone.

Rather, Rava said: With regard to leprosy, since it spreads from the substance of the garment itself,

the affliction of leprosy spreads from the garment’s own substance

it penetrates it,

the affliction penetrates into the garment

and makes it

the garment

soft,

so that everyone agrees that it is subject to laundering. Therefore, the verse concerning leprosy refers even to hard leather [since it becomes soft through the leprosy], whereas our Mishna refers to soft leather, and the dispute between the Rabbis and Others concerns hard leather.