Zevachim 95a (צה.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Rav Huna’s ruling that if one leaves in it enough for a ma'aforet it remains connected applies only

by rabbinic decree;

it was decreed lest he fail to tear most of it. But by Torah law it is pure. And it is permitted to bring it into the Temple courtyard for laundering, and although it is impure by rabbinic decree, they did not issue a decree in this case because of the mitzva of laundering. It follows that with regard to impurity it is not considered a garment, but with regard to the blood of a sin-offering it is considered a garment. Since he left in it the measure of a cloth, it is fit to connect the garment, and the status of a garment remains upon it.

We learned in the Mishna:

An earthenware vessel that went out, etc.

And we challenge this: Is it so that if

one punctures it

and thereby nullifies its status as a vessel in order to purify it? But

the Merciful One stated: “a vessel,”

as it is written: “And the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken”; this indicates that it must have the status of a vessel at the time it is broken,

but it is not a vessel

after it has been punctured.

And we answer:

He punctured it

with a small hole, measuring

like the root of a small plant,

and through this it became pure from its impurity, while it still retains the status of a vessel with regard to the sin-offering, so that the mitzva of breaking it in the Temple can be fulfilled with it. But if he punctured it with a large hole, so that it completely lost the status of a vessel, it may no longer be brought in and broken.

We learned in the Mishna:

A copper vessel

that became impure,

one makes a hole in it

in order to purify it.

And we challenge this:

But it is not a vessel

at the time of rinsing and washing, since its status as a vessel was nullified by its being punctured. Yet the Torah stated that it must have the status of a vessel at the time of rinsing and washing, as it is stated: “And if he cooked it in a copper vessel, then it shall be scoured and rinsed with water.”

And we answer:

He hammers it flat.

After making a hole in it, he strikes it with a hammer and closes it, so that the status of a vessel returns to it, in order to fulfill with it the mitzva of scouring and rinsing.

Reish Lakish said: A robe

of the priestly garments upon which the blood of a sin-offering splashed, and which went outside the curtains,

and became impure, he brings it in,

the section containing the blood, into the Temple courtyard,

with less

than a measure

of three

by three fingerbreadths,

and launders it.

He does not bring a measure of an impure garment into the Temple courtyard, since it is impossible to tear it,

because it is stated

in the Torah concerning the robe: “

It shall not be torn .

Therefore, it is impossible to tear it and thereby remove it from the status of a garment in order to purify it. Consequently, he brings the place of the blood with less than three by three fingerbreadths, which does not have the measure of a garment capable of contracting impurity. There is no prohibition against bringing it into the Temple courtyard.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Adda bar Ahava challenges:

But is it not written in the Mishna:

Thick

garments that are very thick,

and thin

garments that are very thin and are not woven,

do not have

the measure required to contract impurity

of three by three

fingerbreadths, since they are fit neither for wearing nor for making a shirt with them, but only for sitting upon. Therefore, their measure is three by three handbreadths. But the robe is a thick garment [whose threads are doubled twelvefold], and its measure for contracting impurity is three by three handbreadths. Why, then, is it forbidden to bring in a measure of three by three fingerbreadths?

And we answer:

Because of their principal garment, they are significant.

When a small piece of cloth is attached to a large garment, a measure of three by three fingerbreadths is significant. Therefore, it must be brought in with less than three by three, even though it is a thick garment, because it is attached to the garment.

And we challenge this:

But it requires

for laundering the blood of a sin-offering

seven substances

that are listed with regard to removing stains of menstrual blood?

For Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: The blood of a sin-offering and the appearances of skin afflictions

which likewise require laundering by Torah law, as it is stated: “And he shall wash the place in which the affliction was,”

require seven substances

in order to remove them, and one of them is urine.

But the laundering of the blood of a sin-offering is performed in the Temple courtyard. How, then, can urine be brought into the Temple courtyard? Is it not taught in a beraita:

Rather, urine is not brought into the Temple!