Zevachim 95a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: The ruling of Rav Huna—that if one leaves in it enough for a ma'aforet, it is a connection—is only

rabbinic;

it is a decree lest he not 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 even though it is impure by rabbinic law, because of the mitzva of laundering they did not decree concerning it. It follows that with regard to impurity it is not called a garment, but with regard to the blood of a sin-offering it is called a garment, since, once he left in it enough for the measure of a cloth, it is fit to connect the garment, and the name garment remains upon it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“An earthenware vessel that went out, etc.”

And we challenge: Is it so that if they

perforate it

and thereby annul it from being a vessel in order to purify it? But

the Torah said: “vessel,”

as it is written: “And the earthenware vessel in which he cooks shall be broken”; it follows that it must have the status of a vessel at the time of its breaking,

but it is not a vessel

after the perforation.

And we answer:

He perforated it

with a small hole, of the measure

of a small root,

and through this it became pure from its impurity, but it still has the status of a vessel with regard to a sin-offering, in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of breaking in the Temple. But if he perforated it with a large hole, so that it completely left the category of a vessel, he may no longer bring it in and break it.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A copper vessel”

that became impure,

“he makes a breach in it”

in order to purify it.

And we challenge:

But it is not a vessel

at the time of rinsing and washing, since the status of a vessel was annulled from it through its perforation; and the Torah said 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 in water.”

And we answer:

He hammers it by hammering.

After he makes a breach in it, he strikes it with a hammer and joins it, and the status of a vessel returns to it, in order to fulfill through it the mitzva of rinsing and washing.

Reish Lakish said: A robe

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

and it became impure, he brings it in,

the part containing the place of the blood, into the Temple courtyard,

in less

than the measure of

three

by three fingerbreadths,

and launders it.

For he is not bringing the 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 .

And therefore it is impossible to tear it and annul it from the category of a garment in order to purify it. Consequently, he brings the place of the blood in less than three by three, which does not have the measure of a garment with regard to impurity. And there is no prohibition against bringing it into the Temple courtyard.

And we ask:

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection:

But is it not written in the Mishna:

“The thick”

very thick garments,

“and the soft”

very thin garments that are not woven,

“do not have”

the measure for receiving impurity

of three by three

fingerbreadths, since they are fit neither for wearing nor for repairing a cloak with them, but only for sitting upon them, and therefore their measure is three by three handbreadths. But the robe is a thick garment [whose threads are doubled twelvefold], and its measure for receiving 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 father they are significant.

When a small garment is attached to a large garment, the measure of three by three fingerbreadths has significance. Therefore, it is necessary to bring it in less than three by three, even though it is a thick garment, because it is attached to the garment.

And we challenge:

But does he not need

for laundering the blood of a sin-offering

seven substances

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

For Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: The blood of a sin-offering and the appearances of lesions

—for concerning them as well the Torah required laundering, as it is stated, “And he shall launder that in which the lesion is”—

require seven substances

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

And the laundering of the blood of a sin-offering is performed in the Temple courtyard. But how do they bring urine into the Temple courtyard? For

it was taught in a beraita: Rather, they do not bring urine into the Temple!