Study Guide Zevachim 94. What types of materials need laundering if blood from the sin offering spills on them?
Zevachim 94
07.16.2018 | ד׳ באב תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 94
וְכׇל מִינֵי בְגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹר מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ – מָה בֶּגֶד דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.
and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.” One might have thought that I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed. That verse states: “Garment,” to teach that just as a garment is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity as is, so too any comparable item that is a ready utensil and therefore susceptible to impurity must be laundered. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar holds that merely flaying a hide is insufficient to render it an item that must be laundered.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַטְלֵית פְּחוּתָה מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar? Is there an item that is fit to become ritually impure, but is not actually susceptible to impurity? Abaye said: A patch of cloth less than three by three fingerbreadths presents a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this patch of cloth is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants, he can intend it for a specific use, as in patching his garment. According to the one who says that only an object already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this patch, in any event, is not yet susceptible to impurity, so it does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: בֶּגֶד שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְצוּרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְמַחְשַׁבְתֵּיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
Rava said: A garment upon which an individual initially intended to place an image constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. Since the garment was initially intended to have an adornment, the garment is considered incomplete and not yet susceptible to impurity until the image is added. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure requires laundering, this garment is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants to, he can void his intention to add the image, and the garment will be automatically susceptible to impurity. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity requires laundering, now, at least, this garment is not susceptible to impurity and does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: עוּצְבָּא דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלַהּ לְקַצְּעָהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רְאוּיָה; מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא לָאו מְקַבְּלָה טוּמְאָה עַד דִּמְקַצַּע לַהּ. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוּצְבָּא שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְקַצְּעָהּ – טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיְּקַצְּעֶנָּה.
According to a different version, Rava said: An unfinished hide [utzeva] that one intended to trim in a precise manner constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment-like item fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this hide must be laundered, since it is also fit to be susceptible to impurity if he voids his intention. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this hide does not require laundering since it is not susceptible to impurity until he trims it. This explanation may be corroborated, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An unfinished hide that one intended to trim is ritually pure until he trims it.
אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל נִתַּז עַל מִקְצָת בֶּגֶד – יְהֵא כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דָּם בִּלְבַד.
§ The mishna teaches: A garment requires laundering only in the place that the blood was sprayed; but the entire garment does not require laundering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught: The verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.” One might have thought that even if the blood sprayed only on part of a garment, the entire garment should require laundering. To counter this, the same verse states: “That on which it shall be sprinkled.” This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.
דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה [וְכוּ׳]. סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The mishna also teaches: A garment must be laundered only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering. The Gemara observes: Evidently, the unattributed portion of the mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. This statement is unlike the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that only an item that is presently susceptible to impurity requires laundering.
רָאוּי לְכִיבּוּס. לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּלִי, דְּבַר גְּרִידָה הוּא.
The mishna also teaches: Only an item fit for laundering must be laundered. The Gemara observes: This qualification serves to exclude a vessel from the requirement of laundering, as it is suitable for scraping blood off of it. Laundering is necessary only for material or fabric into which blood is absorbed.
אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּעוֹר בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָיְתָה עָלָיו לַשְׁלֶשֶׁת – מְקַנְּחָהּ בִּסְמַרְטוּט. הָיְתָה עַל שֶׁל עוֹר – נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה!
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these must be laundered. Apparently, that is to say that a hide, i.e., leather, is suitable for laundering. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that assumption and a mishna that discusses laundering on Shabbat (Shabbat 142b): If there were bird droppings [lishleshet] on the cushion, one wipes it with a dry rag, but one may not rinse it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If it was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filthy substance dissolves. Evidently, cleaning leather with water is not considered laundering.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבָּנַן הָא אֲחֵרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק – מְכַבְּסוֹ, הַכְּלִי וְהָעוֹר – מְגָרְרוֹ. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר – מְכַבְּסוֹ, וְהַכְּלִי – מְגָרְרוֹ.
Abaye said: This contradiction is not difficult. That mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of others. As it is taught in a baraita about the blood of a sin offering: If blood sprays onto a garment or onto sackcloth, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel or onto leather, he scrapes it off. Others say: If it sprays onto a garment, or onto sackcloth, or onto leather, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel, he scrapes it off. According to this baraita, the Rabbis hold that laundering is not applicable to leather, and the opinion attributed to: Others say, holds that it is applicable.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא? כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this baraita.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר, עוֹר לָאו בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהַבֶּגֶד אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כׇל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא וּמַתְנִיתִין – בְּרַכִּין, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּקָשִׁין.
§ Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn’t it written with regard to leprosy: “And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash” (Leviticus 13:58)? Rather, Rava said: The verse that speaks of leprosy and the mishna that speaks of the sin offering are ruling with regard to soft leather, which is considered subject to laundering. In the baraita, when the Rabbis and the others disagree, it is with regard to an item that is made of hard leather; as the Rabbis hold that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
וְהָאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא! בְּקָשִׁין, וּכְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara challenges Rava’s explanation: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? Since shoes are normally made of soft leather, according to Rava’s explanation, this should have constituted laundering on Shabbat. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: It was a case of hard leather shoes, and Rav acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; נֵיקוּ נֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא דְּכִי כְתִיבָן בְּרַכִּין כְּתִיבָן?! מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן בִּכְלֵי אֶכְּסָלְגְיָא הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נִיבְעֵי כִּיבּוּס?
Rava then said: That which I said, that the verse about leprosy relates to soft leather, is not correct. Shall we stand and say of the verse that when leather articles are written, it is only of soft leather articles that the Torah writes? A verse cannot be constrained in such a manner. Are we not also dealing with articles of hard leather [aksilgiyya] that come from overseas, and yet the Merciful One says in the verse that they require laundering?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: צָרַעַת – כֵּיוָן דְּמִגּוּפֵיהּ קָא פָרְחָה, מְחַלְחֲלָא לֵיהּ וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לַהּ רַךְ. אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי:
Rather, Rava said: Although the verse also relates to hard leather, this does not mean that all opinions must agree that laundering is always applicable to hard leather. The hard leather in the verse is an exception, because in the case of leprosy, since leprosy sprouts from within the garment itself, it loosens it and renders it soft so that its halakhic status is that of soft leather. Rava said: Nevertheless, if something poses a difficulty for me, according to my opinion that everyone agrees that the halakha with regard to laundering applies to soft leather, this is what poses a difficulty for me:
כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת – דְּרַכִּין נִינְהוּ, וּתְנַן: הָיְתָה שֶׁל עוֹר נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל כִּיבּוּס דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כִּיסְכּוּס, לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּס.
Cushions and blankets that are of soft leather, and for which the halakha with regard to laundering should be relevant, and yet we learned about them in the mishna (Shabbat 142b): If the filth was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filth dissolves, which indicates that the halakha with regard to laundering is not applicable even to soft leather. Rather, Rava said: With regard to any laundering that does not include rubbing, it is not considered laundering. Consequently, one may apply water to a soft leather cushion, but soft leather remains subject to laundering, so long as there is rubbing.
וְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּבּוּס לָא – אִי בְּרַכִּין וּכְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, אִי בְּקָשִׁין וְכַאֲחֵרִים.
And that statement that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, may be explained accordingly. With regard to placing water on leather, yes, that is permitted, but with regard to laundering, which includes rubbing, it is not permitted. This may be explained as follows: If Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of hard leather shoes, the distinction between placing and rubbing accords with the opinion of the others, who hold that the requirement of laundering sprayed blood applies even to hard leather.
אִי הָכִי, בֶּגֶד נָמֵי! בֶּגֶד – שְׁרִיָּיתוֹ זֶהוּ כִּיבּוּסוֹ.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that placing water upon something is not considered laundering so long as one does not also rub the item, then with regard to a non-leather garment as well, one should be allowed to place water upon it on Shabbat. Why does the cited mishna state that one may wipe it only with a dry rag? The Gemara answers: With regard to a garment, its soaking is its laundering, and merely placing water on it is forbidden.
רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: זָרַק סוּדָר לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. זָרַק פִּשְׁתָּן לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁלָמָא סוּדָר – עָבֵיד כִּיבּוּס; אֶלָּא זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning; as Rava says: If one cast a cloth into water on Shabbat, he is liable for laundering on Shabbat, as it is made of fabric like any garment; and if one cast flax seeds into water, he too is liable. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if he casts a cloth into water, he performs laundering; but with regard to flaxseed, what is the reason that one may not cast it into water on Shabbat?
וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִקַדַּח – אִי הָכִי, חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי נָמֵי! הָנָךְ אִית לְהוּ רִירֵי. אִי הָכִי, שְׁלָחִים נָמֵי! הָתָם קָעָבֵיד לִישָׁה.
And if you would say that it is prohibited because it sprouts in the water and constitutes the prohibited act of planting, if so, with regard to wheat and barley, it should also be forbidden to place them into water. The Gemara explains: Casting the flax into the water is not prohibited because of planting but because these flax seeds have discharges when soaked. If so, with regard to hides, it should also be prohibited to place them into water, because they too produce discharges in water. The Gemara answers: There, with regard to flaxseed, it is prohibited because it effects kneading, as the discharges cause the seeds to combine together, which is not true of hides.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מוּתָּר לְכַבֵּס מִנְעָל בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵי בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּיבּוּס לָא! הֲדַר אוֹקֵי רָבָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם – טָעוּת הֵם בְּיָדִי; בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ: שִׁכְשׁוּךְ מוּתָּר, כִּיבּוּס אָסוּר.
The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes? Evidently, placing water upon leather, yes, that is permitted, but laundering, which includes rubbing, is not permitted. Rava went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and taught in public: The statements that I said before you earlier are my error. Truly, the Sages said like this: Placing water upon shoes is permitted, but laundering them is prohibited.
הַכִּיבּוּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ״. שְׁבִירַת כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר״. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה, וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם״.
§ The mishna teaches: The laundering must be performed in a sacred place, and the breaking of an earthenware vessel must be performed in a sacred place, and the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be performed in a sacred place. From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: Concerning a garment on which blood was sprayed, the verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). From where is the halakha with regard to the breaking of an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The subsequent verse states: “And the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken” (Leviticus 6:21). From where is the halakha with regard to the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The verse states immediately thereafter: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.”
זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּחַטָּאת כּוּ׳. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָאִיכָּא שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים! בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to this matter, a stringency applies to a sin offering more than it applies to offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara asks: And are there no more halakhot specific to a sin offering? But there is this halakha: That its blood enters the innermost sanctum to be sprinkled. The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with external sin offerings, and this halakha applies only to internal sin offerings.
שֶׁאִם נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ (לִפְנַי וְ)לִפְנִים – פְּסוּלָה! כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל לְכַפֵּר – פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it becomes disqualified. The Gemara explains: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Every offering’s blood, not only that of a sin offering, that enters the Sanctuary to atone becomes disqualified; therefore, this is not a halakha specific to a sin offering.
שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת! בְּחַטָּאת דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha that external sin offerings atone for those who are liable to receive excision, karet, through unintentional sins. The Gemara explains: The mishna includes an offering that does not have that halakha, as its principles also apply to a sin offering brought for hearing the voice, i.e., for falsely taking an oath that one is unable to testify in another’s case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.
שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת! כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים טְעוּנִין אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that the blood of a sin offering requires four placements on the altar, unlike other offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This mishna is composed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that all blood of offerings requires four placements, one upon each of the four corners of the altar; accordingly, this is not a halakha limited to the sin offering.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָאִיכָּא קֶרֶן! הָאִיכָּא אֶצְבַּע! הָאִיכָּא חוּדָּהּ! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי תְּלָתָא חוּמְרֵי נָקֵט.
The Gemara asks: And even according to your reasoning, can it be said that there is only one halakha that applies to a sin offering but does not apply to other offerings? Isn’t there the requirement to place a sin offering’s blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isn’t there the requirement that a priest place a sin offering’s blood on the altar with his finger? Isn’t there the requirement to place it on the edge of the altar? Therefore, it should not be assumed that this is the only halakha unique to a sin offering, but rather that the mishna simply cited one of two or three stringencies.
מַתְנִי׳ בֶּגֶד שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – קוֹרְעוֹ, נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בִּמְקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נוֹקְבוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
MISHNA: With regard to a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering was sprayed that went outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard, before being laundered, the garment reenters the courtyard and one launders it in a sacred place. If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. With regard to an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard and one breaks it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one punctures the vessel to render it ritually pure, and one enters the courtyard with it and breaks it in a sacred place.
כְּלִי נְחֹשֶׁת שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – פּוֹחֲתוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
With regard to a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard, and one scours it and rinses it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure and enters the courtyard with it and scours and rinses it in a sacred place.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: קוֹרְעוֹ?! ״בֶּגֶד״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו בֶּגֶד הוּא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. Ravina objects to this: How can the mishna say that one tears it? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must launder “a garment” (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.
דִּמְשַׁיַּיר בֵּיהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר הָוֵי!
The Gemara answers: The mishna describes a scenario when he leaves untorn a fragment of the garment that is size enough for a small cloth. Is that so? If he leaves such a portion intact, is he still permitted to bring the garment back into the courtyard? But doesn’t Rav Huna say: The Sages taught that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, loses its impurity only when one did not leave of it enough for a small cloth, but if he left enough of it untorn for a small cloth, it is considered a joining of the pieces, and the garment remains ritually impure. Accordingly, leaving a piece that size would not serve any purpose with regard to ritual impurity.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Beth Kissileff
Pittsburgh, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Lori Stark
Highland Park, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
Zevachim 94
וְכׇל מִינֵי בְגָדִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹר מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ – מָה בֶּגֶד דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה.
and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.” One might have thought that I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed. That verse states: “Garment,” to teach that just as a garment is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity as is, so too any comparable item that is a ready utensil and therefore susceptible to impurity must be laundered. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar holds that merely flaying a hide is insufficient to render it an item that must be laundered.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַטְלֵית פְּחוּתָה מִשָּׁלֹשׁ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי חַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar? Is there an item that is fit to become ritually impure, but is not actually susceptible to impurity? Abaye said: A patch of cloth less than three by three fingerbreadths presents a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this patch of cloth is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants, he can intend it for a specific use, as in patching his garment. According to the one who says that only an object already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this patch, in any event, is not yet susceptible to impurity, so it does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: בֶּגֶד שֶׁחִישֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְצוּרָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רָאוּי, דְּאִי בָּעֵי מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְמַחְשַׁבְתֵּיהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לָאו בַּת קַבּוֹלֵי טוּמְאָה הִיא.
Rava said: A garment upon which an individual initially intended to place an image constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. Since the garment was initially intended to have an adornment, the garment is considered incomplete and not yet susceptible to impurity until the image is added. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure requires laundering, this garment is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants to, he can void his intention to add the image, and the garment will be automatically susceptible to impurity. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity requires laundering, now, at least, this garment is not susceptible to impurity and does not require laundering.
רָבָא אָמַר: עוּצְבָּא דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלַהּ לְקַצְּעָהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מַאן דְּאָמַר רָאוּי – הָא נָמֵי רְאוּיָה; מַאן דְּאָמַר דָּבָר הַמְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה – הָא לָאו מְקַבְּלָה טוּמְאָה עַד דִּמְקַצַּע לַהּ. וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: עוּצְבָּא שֶׁחִשֵּׁב עָלֶיהָ לְקַצְּעָהּ – טְהוֹרָה עַד שֶׁיְּקַצְּעֶנָּה.
According to a different version, Rava said: An unfinished hide [utzeva] that one intended to trim in a precise manner constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment-like item fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this hide must be laundered, since it is also fit to be susceptible to impurity if he voids his intention. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this hide does not require laundering since it is not susceptible to impurity until he trims it. This explanation may be corroborated, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An unfinished hide that one intended to trim is ritually pure until he trims it.
אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל נִתַּז עַל מִקְצָת בֶּגֶד – יְהֵא כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם דָּם בִּלְבַד.
§ The mishna teaches: A garment requires laundering only in the place that the blood was sprayed; but the entire garment does not require laundering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught: The verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.” One might have thought that even if the blood sprayed only on part of a garment, the entire garment should require laundering. To counter this, the same verse states: “That on which it shall be sprinkled.” This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.
דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה [וְכוּ׳]. סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The mishna also teaches: A garment must be laundered only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering. The Gemara observes: Evidently, the unattributed portion of the mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. This statement is unlike the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that only an item that is presently susceptible to impurity requires laundering.
רָאוּי לְכִיבּוּס. לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּלִי, דְּבַר גְּרִידָה הוּא.
The mishna also teaches: Only an item fit for laundering must be laundered. The Gemara observes: This qualification serves to exclude a vessel from the requirement of laundering, as it is suitable for scraping blood off of it. Laundering is necessary only for material or fabric into which blood is absorbed.
אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק כּוּ׳. לְמֵימְרָא דְּעוֹר בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: הָיְתָה עָלָיו לַשְׁלֶשֶׁת – מְקַנְּחָהּ בִּסְמַרְטוּט. הָיְתָה עַל שֶׁל עוֹר – נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה!
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these must be laundered. Apparently, that is to say that a hide, i.e., leather, is suitable for laundering. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that assumption and a mishna that discusses laundering on Shabbat (Shabbat 142b): If there were bird droppings [lishleshet] on the cushion, one wipes it with a dry rag, but one may not rinse it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If it was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filthy substance dissolves. Evidently, cleaning leather with water is not considered laundering.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבָּנַן הָא אֲחֵרִים. דְּתַנְיָא: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק – מְכַבְּסוֹ, הַכְּלִי וְהָעוֹר – מְגָרְרוֹ. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: הַבֶּגֶד וְהַשַּׂק וְהָעוֹר – מְכַבְּסוֹ, וְהַכְּלִי – מְגָרְרוֹ.
Abaye said: This contradiction is not difficult. That mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of others. As it is taught in a baraita about the blood of a sin offering: If blood sprays onto a garment or onto sackcloth, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel or onto leather, he scrapes it off. Others say: If it sprays onto a garment, or onto sackcloth, or onto leather, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel, he scrapes it off. According to this baraita, the Rabbis hold that laundering is not applicable to leather, and the opinion attributed to: Others say, holds that it is applicable.
כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא? כְּמַאן – כְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this baraita.
אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר, עוֹר לָאו בַּר כִּיבּוּס הוּא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְהַבֶּגֶד אוֹ הַשְּׁתִי אוֹ הָעֵרֶב אוֹ כׇל כְּלִי הָעוֹר אֲשֶׁר תְּכַבֵּס״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: קְרָא וּמַתְנִיתִין – בְּרַכִּין, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּקָשִׁין.
§ Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn’t it written with regard to leprosy: “And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash” (Leviticus 13:58)? Rather, Rava said: The verse that speaks of leprosy and the mishna that speaks of the sin offering are ruling with regard to soft leather, which is considered subject to laundering. In the baraita, when the Rabbis and the others disagree, it is with regard to an item that is made of hard leather; as the Rabbis hold that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
וְהָאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא! בְּקָשִׁין, וּכְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara challenges Rava’s explanation: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? Since shoes are normally made of soft leather, according to Rava’s explanation, this should have constituted laundering on Shabbat. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: It was a case of hard leather shoes, and Rav acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא דַּאֲמַרִי; נֵיקוּ נֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא דְּכִי כְתִיבָן בְּרַכִּין כְּתִיבָן?! מִי לָא עָסְקִינַן בִּכְלֵי אֶכְּסָלְגְיָא הַבָּאִים מִמְּדִינַת הַיָּם, וְקָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא נִיבְעֵי כִּיבּוּס?
Rava then said: That which I said, that the verse about leprosy relates to soft leather, is not correct. Shall we stand and say of the verse that when leather articles are written, it is only of soft leather articles that the Torah writes? A verse cannot be constrained in such a manner. Are we not also dealing with articles of hard leather [aksilgiyya] that come from overseas, and yet the Merciful One says in the verse that they require laundering?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: צָרַעַת – כֵּיוָן דְּמִגּוּפֵיהּ קָא פָרְחָה, מְחַלְחֲלָא לֵיהּ וּמְשַׁוְּיָא לַהּ רַךְ. אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי:
Rather, Rava said: Although the verse also relates to hard leather, this does not mean that all opinions must agree that laundering is always applicable to hard leather. The hard leather in the verse is an exception, because in the case of leprosy, since leprosy sprouts from within the garment itself, it loosens it and renders it soft so that its halakhic status is that of soft leather. Rava said: Nevertheless, if something poses a difficulty for me, according to my opinion that everyone agrees that the halakha with regard to laundering applies to soft leather, this is what poses a difficulty for me:
כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת – דְּרַכִּין נִינְהוּ, וּתְנַן: הָיְתָה שֶׁל עוֹר נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ מַיִם עַד שֶׁתִּכְלֶה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל כִּיבּוּס דְּלֵית לֵיהּ כִּיסְכּוּס, לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּס.
Cushions and blankets that are of soft leather, and for which the halakha with regard to laundering should be relevant, and yet we learned about them in the mishna (Shabbat 142b): If the filth was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filth dissolves, which indicates that the halakha with regard to laundering is not applicable even to soft leather. Rather, Rava said: With regard to any laundering that does not include rubbing, it is not considered laundering. Consequently, one may apply water to a soft leather cushion, but soft leather remains subject to laundering, so long as there is rubbing.
וְהָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּבּוּס לָא – אִי בְּרַכִּין וּכְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל, אִי בְּקָשִׁין וְכַאֲחֵרִים.
And that statement that Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, may be explained accordingly. With regard to placing water on leather, yes, that is permitted, but with regard to laundering, which includes rubbing, it is not permitted. This may be explained as follows: If Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of soft leather shoes, then all agree that only placing water is permitted. And if Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi spoke of hard leather shoes, the distinction between placing and rubbing accords with the opinion of the others, who hold that the requirement of laundering sprayed blood applies even to hard leather.
אִי הָכִי, בֶּגֶד נָמֵי! בֶּגֶד – שְׁרִיָּיתוֹ זֶהוּ כִּיבּוּסוֹ.
The Gemara asks: If that is so, that placing water upon something is not considered laundering so long as one does not also rub the item, then with regard to a non-leather garment as well, one should be allowed to place water upon it on Shabbat. Why does the cited mishna state that one may wipe it only with a dry rag? The Gemara answers: With regard to a garment, its soaking is its laundering, and merely placing water on it is forbidden.
רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר רָבָא: זָרַק סוּדָר לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. זָרַק פִּשְׁתָּן לְמַיִם – חַיָּיב. בִּשְׁלָמָא סוּדָר – עָבֵיד כִּיבּוּס; אֶלָּא זֶרַע פִּשְׁתָּן מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his standard line of reasoning; as Rava says: If one cast a cloth into water on Shabbat, he is liable for laundering on Shabbat, as it is made of fabric like any garment; and if one cast flax seeds into water, he too is liable. The Gemara analyzes this statement: Granted, if he casts a cloth into water, he performs laundering; but with regard to flaxseed, what is the reason that one may not cast it into water on Shabbat?
וְכִי תֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם דְּמִקַדַּח – אִי הָכִי, חִיטֵּי וּשְׂעָרֵי נָמֵי! הָנָךְ אִית לְהוּ רִירֵי. אִי הָכִי, שְׁלָחִים נָמֵי! הָתָם קָעָבֵיד לִישָׁה.
And if you would say that it is prohibited because it sprouts in the water and constitutes the prohibited act of planting, if so, with regard to wheat and barley, it should also be forbidden to place them into water. The Gemara explains: Casting the flax into the water is not prohibited because of planting but because these flax seeds have discharges when soaked. If so, with regard to hides, it should also be prohibited to place them into water, because they too produce discharges in water. The Gemara answers: There, with regard to flaxseed, it is prohibited because it effects kneading, as the discharges cause the seeds to combine together, which is not true of hides.
דָּרֵשׁ רָבָא: מוּתָּר לְכַבֵּס מִנְעָל בְּשַׁבָּת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא, וְהָא אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָשֵׁי: זִימְנִין סַגִּיאִין הֲוָה קָאֵימְנָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, וְשַׁכְשֵׁיכִי לֵיהּ מְסָאנֵי בְּמַיָּא; שִׁכְשׁוּךְ אִין, אֲבָל כִּיבּוּס לָא! הֲדַר אוֹקֵי רָבָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ וּדְרַשׁ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם – טָעוּת הֵם בְּיָדִי; בְּרַם כָּךְ אָמְרוּ: שִׁכְשׁוּךְ מוּתָּר, כִּיבּוּס אָסוּר.
The Gemara relates: Rava taught in public: It is permitted to launder a shoe on Shabbat. Rav Pappa said to Rava: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes? Evidently, placing water upon leather, yes, that is permitted, but laundering, which includes rubbing, is not permitted. Rava went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and taught in public: The statements that I said before you earlier are my error. Truly, the Sages said like this: Placing water upon shoes is permitted, but laundering them is prohibited.
הַכִּיבּוּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תְּכַבֵּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ״. שְׁבִירַת כְּלִי חֶרֶס מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר תְּבֻשַּׁל בּוֹ יִשָּׁבֵר״. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה, וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף בַּמָּיִם״.
§ The mishna teaches: The laundering must be performed in a sacred place, and the breaking of an earthenware vessel must be performed in a sacred place, and the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be performed in a sacred place. From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught in a baraita: Concerning a garment on which blood was sprayed, the verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). From where is the halakha with regard to the breaking of an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The subsequent verse states: “And the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken” (Leviticus 6:21). From where is the halakha with regard to the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked derived? The verse states immediately thereafter: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.”
זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּחַטָּאת כּוּ׳. וְתוּ לֵיכָּא?! וְהָאִיכָּא שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים! בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to this matter, a stringency applies to a sin offering more than it applies to offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara asks: And are there no more halakhot specific to a sin offering? But there is this halakha: That its blood enters the innermost sanctum to be sprinkled. The Gemara answers: The mishna is dealing with external sin offerings, and this halakha applies only to internal sin offerings.
שֶׁאִם נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ (לִפְנַי וְ)לִפְנִים – פְּסוּלָה! כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לַהֵיכָל לְכַפֵּר – פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it becomes disqualified. The Gemara explains: This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Every offering’s blood, not only that of a sin offering, that enters the Sanctuary to atone becomes disqualified; therefore, this is not a halakha specific to a sin offering.
שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת! בְּחַטָּאת דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the halakha that external sin offerings atone for those who are liable to receive excision, karet, through unintentional sins. The Gemara explains: The mishna includes an offering that does not have that halakha, as its principles also apply to a sin offering brought for hearing the voice, i.e., for falsely taking an oath that one is unable to testify in another’s case. This transgression is not punishable by karet.
שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנָה אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת! כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל דָּמִים טְעוּנִין אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת.
The Gemara challenges: But there is the stricture that the blood of a sin offering requires four placements on the altar, unlike other offerings of the most sacred order. The Gemara explains: This mishna is composed in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says that all blood of offerings requires four placements, one upon each of the four corners of the altar; accordingly, this is not a halakha limited to the sin offering.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָאִיכָּא קֶרֶן! הָאִיכָּא אֶצְבַּע! הָאִיכָּא חוּדָּהּ! אֶלָּא חַד מִתְּרֵי תְּלָתָא חוּמְרֵי נָקֵט.
The Gemara asks: And even according to your reasoning, can it be said that there is only one halakha that applies to a sin offering but does not apply to other offerings? Isn’t there the requirement to place a sin offering’s blood on the corner at the top of the altar? Isn’t there the requirement that a priest place a sin offering’s blood on the altar with his finger? Isn’t there the requirement to place it on the edge of the altar? Therefore, it should not be assumed that this is the only halakha unique to a sin offering, but rather that the mishna simply cited one of two or three stringencies.
מַתְנִי׳ בֶּגֶד שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – קוֹרְעוֹ, נִכְנָס וּמְכַבְּסוֹ בִּמְקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. כְּלִי חֶרֶס שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נוֹקְבוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וְשׁוֹבְרוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
MISHNA: With regard to a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering was sprayed that went outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard, before being laundered, the garment reenters the courtyard and one launders it in a sacred place. If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. With regard to an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard and one breaks it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one punctures the vessel to render it ritually pure, and one enters the courtyard with it and breaks it in a sacred place.
כְּלִי נְחֹשֶׁת שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – נִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. נִטְמָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – פּוֹחֲתוֹ, וְנִכְנָס וּמוֹרְקוֹ וְשׁוֹטְפוֹ בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ.
With regard to a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains, the vessel reenters the courtyard, and one scours it and rinses it in a sacred place. If the vessel became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure and enters the courtyard with it and scours and rinses it in a sacred place.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: קוֹרְעוֹ?! ״בֶּגֶד״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָאו בֶּגֶד הוּא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If the garment became ritually impure outside the curtains, one tears the garment in order to render it ritually pure, enters the courtyard with it, and launders it in a sacred place. Ravina objects to this: How can the mishna say that one tears it? The Merciful One states in the Torah that one must launder “a garment” (Leviticus 6:20), and once this article is torn, this is no longer a garment, but only a scrap of cloth.
דִּמְשַׁיַּיר בֵּיהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת. אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת, אֲבָל שִׁיֵּיר בָּהּ כְּדֵי מַעְפּוֹרֶת – חִבּוּר הָוֵי!
The Gemara answers: The mishna describes a scenario when he leaves untorn a fragment of the garment that is size enough for a small cloth. Is that so? If he leaves such a portion intact, is he still permitted to bring the garment back into the courtyard? But doesn’t Rav Huna say: The Sages taught that an impure garment, most of which has been torn, loses its impurity only when one did not leave of it enough for a small cloth, but if he left enough of it untorn for a small cloth, it is considered a joining of the pieces, and the garment remains ritually impure. Accordingly, leaving a piece that size would not serve any purpose with regard to ritual impurity.
Follow
