זבחים צ״ב א:ו׳-צ״ח ב:ה׳

but one may not extinguish a wood coal, because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law? And if it enters your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should be permitted to extinguish even a wood coal. Rabbi Shimon maintains that extinguishing a coal is prohibited by Torah law only when one intends to use the extinguished coal. Otherwise, this constitutes a labor performed on Shabbat which is not necessary for its own sake, which is not prohibited by Torah law.,The Gemara answers: Shmuel’s statements are not contradictory, as with regard to an unintentional act, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But with regard to labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that it is prohibited by Torah law, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,§ Rav Huna says: With regard to wine libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there, without removing them from the Temple courtyard. This is due to the fact that it is stated with regard to a disqualified sin offering: “In the sacred place…it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). This requirement of burning in the sacred place applies to all offerings that are meant to be sacrificed on an altar and became disqualified. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the blood, the oil, the meal offerings, and the libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there.,The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: Bring me an assembly of ten men and I will tell you in their presence this halakha that I wish to disseminate: With regard to libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there.,,MISHNA: In the case of the blood of a sin offering designated for presentation that was sprayed on a garment, that garment requires laundering, as is stated with regard to a sin offering: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment, you shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten and whose blood is presented on the outer altar, as it is stated: “In a sacred place shall it be eaten” (Leviticus 6:19), the principle is not exclusive to eaten sin offerings. With regard to the blood of both the sin offerings that are eaten and the sin offerings that are wholly burned and not eaten and whose blood is presented on the inner altar, garments sprayed with blood from each of these offerings require laundering. As it is stated at the start of that passage: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), it is understood: There is one law for all the sin offerings.,That is the halakha with regard to sin offerings fit for sacrifice. With regard to a disqualified sin offering, its blood does not cause a garment to require laundering whether the offering had a period of fitness when its blood was fit for presentation or whether it did not have a period of fitness. Which offering is the disqualified sin offering that had a period of fitness? It is one that was left overnight and then became disqualified; or it is one that became ritually impure; or it is one that emerged from the Temple courtyard. Which offering is the disqualified sin offering that did not have a period of fitness? It is one that was slaughtered with the intent to eat it or present its blood beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or it is one whose blood was collected by people disqualified for Temple service and they sprinkled its blood.,GEMARA: The mishna teaches: In the case of the blood of a sin offering that was sprayed on a garment, the garment must be laundered, and this is the halakha concerning the blood of sin offerings that are eaten and sin offerings that are wholly burned, as it is stated: “This is the law of the sin offering”; there is one law for all sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And if there is one law for all sin offerings, even the blood of a bird sin offering should also require laundering. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering requires laundering. To counter this, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The word “this” teaches that the halakha is to be restricted to the blood of an animal sin offering and it does not apply to the bird sin offering.,Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering…shall the sin offering be slaughtered” (Leviticus 6:18). The verse is speaking specifically of sin offerings that are slaughtered and not of bird offerings, which are killed by pinching the nape of the neck, rather than slaughtering with a knife.,The Gemara challenges: And I might say that the halakha is to be learned in another manner, and the verse is speaking specifically of sin offerings that are eaten, as it is written: “In a sacred place shall it be eaten” (Leviticus 6:19); but internal sin offerings, which are not eaten, should not be included. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One amplifies the halakha by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering,” which includes all sin offerings, even those that are not eaten.,The Gemara suggests: If so, then even the blood of the bird sin offering should be included. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One restricts the halakha by stating: “This is the law,” which excludes bird offerings.,The Gemara asks: And what did you see that indicated that the verse is to be understood as including internal sin offerings and excluding bird offerings, and not the opposite? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that internal animal sin offerings should have been included by the inclusive language of the verse, as internal sin offerings resemble eaten animal sin offerings in several ways: Each variety is a large animal and not a bird; each variety is subject to slaughter on the north side of the Temple courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.,The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.,Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: “The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.,The Gemara asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: “This is the law of the sin offering”? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from “this,” I would say that the term “shall eat it” is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “shall eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.,Rabba said that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as the verse states: “It shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20). The verse is speaking of sin offerings that require sprinklings, and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).,The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? But isn’t it taught in the mishna: Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten, indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s statement pertains to the matter of scouring and rinsing copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. But in the matter of laundering: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20) is written, and the term “it shall be sprinkled” indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: “The law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18).,The Gemara asks: If so, that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: Both the sin offerings that are eaten and the internal sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the tanna should have stated: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten, first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: Teach it as: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten.,If so, that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of a bird sin offering should require laundering as well, as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes bird offerings by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The Gemara challenges: If so, that the function of this verse is to be understood as a restriction, an external sin offering also should not require laundering. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One amplified the halakha to include external sin offerings by stating: “The law of.”,The Gemara asks: And what did you see that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the eaten animal sin offering should have been included, as the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large animal; each is subject to slaughter on the north side of the courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.,The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included in the requirement for laundering, as the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed sprinkling, just like it is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: Those features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.,§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Avin asks: When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of a bird sin offering, which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, whose blood a priest brought inside the Sanctuary in its neck, what is the halakha? Is its neck comparable to a service vessel, since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, and therefore it is disqualified if brought into the Sanctuary this way?,Or perhaps is its neck comparable to the neck of a large animal offering, about which the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, but the blood is not disqualified when the animal’s flesh is brought inside. What is the status of the bird’s neck? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering convulsed and consequently entered inside the Sanctuary and then it returned to the courtyard, it remains valid; its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, but if a priest has brought it in, it is disqualified because of the blood in its neck.,The Gemara rejects the proof: But according to your reasoning, one might draw a faulty inference from the halakha of a convulsing offering, as follows. With regard to an animal offering of the most sacred order, about which it is taught in a baraita: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal convulsed, and consequently it went out to the south side of the courtyard and then returned to the north side, it remains valid; should it be inferred: But if a priest took it out to the south side it becomes disqualified? The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.,Rather, it must be assumed that this halakha, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It was necessary for the baraita to teach this halakha in order to establish a contrast with an animal that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Here, too, with regard to the bird sin offering, the halakha of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This halakha was necessary for establishing a contrast with a bird offering that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.,§ Rabbi Avin asks another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering spilled onto the floor and the priest collected it from the floor in order to sprinkle it, what is the halakha?,Is it simply that the Merciful One did not require a service vessel for the collection of the bird’s blood, and therefore a priest may collect it from the floor and it remains fit for sprinkling on the altar? Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for sprinkling it in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird’s body, and therefore, if it spills on the floor and the priest collects it, it is unfit for sprinkling.,Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. But if it enters your mind that the Merciful One rendered a vessel unfit for sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. I will deduce the halakha that a bird’s blood does not require laundering because the blood becomes disqualified even by merely passing into the airspace of a vessel. Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The baraita provides no decisive proof, as even if a bird’s blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word “this” must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as in a case when the priest affixes a vessel to the bird’s neck. Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avin’s question.,§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. Levi asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering sprayed from one garment to another garment, what is the halakha? By contact with the first garment, is the blood thereby dismissed with regard to the requirement of laundering, such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? Or perhaps not.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question; and the answer is: The garment requires laundering whichever way you look at it. If the halakha is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest may collect it and it is still fit for presentation on the altar, then this blood is also fit. Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. And if you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if he collects it, it is unfit for presentation, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If the offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, its blood requires laundering. Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness. § In a related matter, Rami bar Ḥama asked of Rav Ḥisda: If the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto a ritually impure garment, so that the blood became impure and unfit for presentation, what is the halakha? Does the garment require laundering? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: From the fact that Rami bar Ḥama asked the question in this manner, with regard to ritually pure blood that sprayed onto an impure garment, and not with regard to blood that was already impure that sprayed onto a garment, conclude from it that he holds that even if the sin offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, a garment onto which its blood sprayed does not require laundering.,His question, therefore, is: Does this statement apply only when one event, the spraying of the blood, occurs after the other event, i.e., the disqualification of the blood? But if the spraying and the disqualification occur simultaneously, as in this case, perhaps the principle does not apply, and the garment must be laundered. Or, perhaps there is no difference whether the events occur this way or that way, and even if the offering becomes unfit only as the blood touches the garment, it still does not require laundering? Rav Ḥisda said to Rami bar Ḥama: The matter is subject to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis, in accordance with the explanation of Rabba, and as Abaye resolves it.,The Gemara elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to water of purification, which has been sanctified by the ashes of the red heifer, even if the water is rendered impure it nevertheless performs its function and purifies a person from the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. This is evident because those performing the rite would sprinkle water of purification even on a menstruating woman who has been rendered impure by a corpse. Although her menstruation impurity renders the water of purification impure when it touches her, it is effective in removing the ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Rabbi Elazar’s opinion is in opposition to that of the Rabbis.,And concerning this dispute, Rabba says: Although it would seem that the water of purification applied to a menstruating woman does not become impure until it touches her, the case may still provide precedent for all water of purification that has become impure, as follows: Rabbi Elazar stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Akiva, who says that passing a vessel containing water of purification over the place where a ritually impure item is renders the vessel considered as if resting there, so that the water becomes impure. Consequently, just as the water of purification is effective for the menstruating woman although it has become impure when hovering above her, water of purification always remains effective after having contracted ritual impurity.,That is Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, as we learned in a mishna (Para 10:5): There is a dispute with regard to the case of a ritually pure person who was standing beyond an oven, which stood between him and the wall, and a carcass of a creeping animal, which imparts impurity, was in the oven; and the person stretched out his hand to the window and took the jug [halagin] containing water of purification and passed it over the opening of the oven. Rabbi Akiva deems the water of purification impure, although the jug has merely passed over the oven’s opening and has not come to rest on it, and the Rabbis deem the water pure. And according to Rabba, in this manner do they disagree: That Rabbi Akiva holds that the jug is considered as if resting on the opening of the oven, and the Rabbis hold that the jug is not considered as if resting there.,And Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s interpretation from a baraita (Tosefta, Para 10:6): Although he deems the water of purification impure in the previous case, Rabbi Akiva concedes that in the act of sprinkling, in which the person passed the water of purification over an impure earthenware vessel or over an impure item designated for lying or sitting, the water remains pure. This is so because there is nothing that renders impure all that is in the airspace directly above it, like anything below that touches it, other than an olive-bulk from a corpse and all other items which impart ritual impurity to those items which overlie them, including a stone marked with leprosy. Such a stone also imparts overlying impurity, rendering impure anything under the same roof or, if there is no roof, in the airspace directly above it up to the sky.,Rather, Abaye said: Everyone agrees that a vessel containing water of purification passing over an item that is ritually impure is not considered as if it is resting on it. And here, with regard to the jug being taken over the oven, they disagree about this: Rabbi Akiva holds that we decree that the vessel contracts impurity by rabbinic law, since perhaps a vessel carried above an impure item will come to rest directly on that impure item. And the Rabbis hold: We do not decree that the vessel contracts impurity in such a case. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that in the act of sprinkling, while the water passes over an impure item, once it has set forth into the air, it has set forth. Since the water has left the person’s hand, the person cannot leave it to rest upon an impure item.,The Gemara asks: If so, Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis would agree that the water of purification does not become impure before touching a menstruating woman. And, if so, then Rabbi Elazar and the Rabbis, who disagree as to whether impure water of purification renders one pure, with regard to what case do they disagree? Abaye said: They disagree with regard to whether one may derive the halakha of impurity rendered earlier, before sprinkling the water of purification, from the halakha of impurity rendered at that very moment that the purification occurs, as in the case of the menstruating woman.,One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds: One derives the halakha in this manner, and, therefore, the water effects purification even if the water has become impure first. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that one does not derive this halakha. Therefore, Rav Ḥisda’s answer to Rami bar Hama is that, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, if the impurity occurs in the moment that the sin offering’s blood touches the impure garment, the halakha is the same as it is when the blood has become impure before reaching the garment. In both cases, the garment is exempt from laundering. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the halakha is not the same in both cases: If the blood becomes impure at the very moment it reaches the garment, laundering is required.,Rava said: The case of sprinkling water of purification upon a menstruating woman has no bearing upon the case of the sprayed garment, as everyone holds that one does not derive the halakha of impurity incurred earlier from the halakha of impurity incurred at that very moment.,Rava continues: But here, with regard to the precedent of the menstruating woman, they disagree about this: Rabbi Elazar holds that sprinkling the water of purification requires a specific measure of the water, but sprinklings of small quantities combine to constitute sprinklings of the required measure. Therefore, if the initial sprinkling on the woman does not contain a sufficient measure of water, the small quantity of water of purification first becomes impure, but it later combines with the subsequent sprinkling to purify her. Consequently, water of purification that has already become impure may effect purification. But the Rabbis hold that sprinkling of the water does not require a measure. Accordingly, the woman is purified by the initial sprinkling, although the purification water becomes impure at the very moment that it reaches her; and this does not have any bearing on a case in which the purification water is impure before it touches the person upon whom it is sprinkled.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a disqualified sin offering, a garment on which its blood is sprayed does not require laundering, whether the offering had a moment of qualification when its blood was fit for sprinkling or whether it did not have a moment of qualification. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a garment on which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, the verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment” (Leviticus 6:20), teaching that laundering is required when some of the blood of a fit sin offering is sprayed on the garment, but this is not so in the case of the blood of a disqualified sin offering. Rabbi Akiva says: If the sin offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, a garment onto which its blood sprayed still requires laundering. If it did not have a period of fitness at all and was then disqualified, a garment onto which its blood sprayed does not require laundering.,And Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to both this sin offering that had a period of fitness and that sin offering that did not, a garment onto which its blood sprayed does not require laundering. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: It is written in the Torah with regard to laundering the blood of a sin offering: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22), and only it. And it is written earlier in that same section: “Of its blood” (Leviticus 6:20), but not all its blood. Therefore, there are two exclusionary terms; one excludes laundering for the situation where the unfit offering had a period of fitness, and the other excludes a situation in which the offering did not have a period of fitness.,The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Akiva interpret these verses? From the term “of its blood” he derives that the offering that has no period of fitness is excluded. The exclusion indicated by the word “it” teaches that the requirement for scouring and rinsing a copper vessel in which sacred food was cooked excludes teruma, i.e., scouring and rinsing is not required for a vessel in which teruma was cooked. And rejecting Rabbi Akiva’s understanding, Rabbi Shimon conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing as explained on 96b, and all the more so does teruma not require this. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon does not need a verse to exclude teruma, and he interprets the verse to exclude both a sin offering that had a period of fitness and a sin offering that did not have a period of fitness.,MISHNA: If the blood of a sin offering sprayed from the neck of the animal onto a garment, the garment does not require laundering. If the blood was collected in a vessel and sprinkled on the altar and sprayed from the corner or from the base of the altar onto the garment, the garment does not require laundering, as the blood was already sprinkled and its mitzva was fulfilled. If the blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and the priest collected the blood and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering.,GEMARA: The Gemara cites sources for the halakhot mentioned in the mishna. The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that if blood sprayed from the neck of the animal onto a garment, the garment should require laundering. Therefore, the verse states: “On which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20), which teaches: I told you that a garment requires laundering only with regard to blood which is fit for sprinkling, which must be collected in a vessel directly from the neck of the animal. It is taught in another baraita: One might have thought that if blood sprayed from the corner or from the base of the altar, the garment should require laundering. Therefore, the verse states: “On which it shall be sprinkled,” excluding that blood that was already sprinkled.,§ The mishna teaches: If the blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and the priest collected the blood and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering. With regard to the statement that only blood that was collected in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires the laundering of the garment on which it sprayed, the Gemara asks: Why do I also need this? After all, it was already taught that if blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. The Gemara answers: This is not an additional halakha, but rather the mishna is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason that if the blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and the priest collected it and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering? This is because it is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering.,§ The mishna teaches: It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is fit for sprinkling that the garment requires laundering. The Gemara asks: As it was already taught that when disqualified blood is sprayed on a garment, it does not require laundering, this reiteration serves to exclude what? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude the case where a priest received less blood than is sufficient for sprinkling in this vessel, and less than is sufficient for sprinkling in that vessel, and then he mixed together the blood from the two vessels. In such a case, even though the combined amount is now enough for sprinkling, the blood did not become fit for sprinkling.,This is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the sanctification of water of purification, Rabbi Ḥalafta bar Shaul says: If a priest sanctified less than is sufficient for sprinkling in this vessel and less than is sufficient for sprinkling in that vessel, and he then mixed together the water from the two vessels, he has not sanctified it to become water of purification.,In a related issue, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a priest did this for the blood of an internal sin offering, collecting less than is sufficient for sprinkling in each vessel and then mixing all the blood together, what is the halakha? Is Rabbi Ḥalafta’s statement about the water of purification a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, and we do not learn from such a halakha an application to a different matter?,Or, perhaps: What is the reason there, that the combined water of purification is not fit for sprinkling? It may be because it is written about sprinkling the water: “And dip it in the water” (Numbers 19:18), stressing that it is to be dipped in precisely the same water that was first placed in the vessel. This indicates that from the outset there must be an amount sufficient for sprinkling. If so, then here also there is comparable language employed with regard to the blood of a sin offering. It is written: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6). Does this prove that from the outset there must be sufficient blood for sprinkling?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rabbi Zerika says that Rabbi Elazar says: Even in the case of the blood of a sin offering, if one collected two insufficient amounts and then mixed them together, he did not sanctify the blood to make it fit for sprinkling on the altar, and therefore, if it sprays on a garment, one is not required to launder the garment.,§ Rava says: It is taught in a baraita with regard to the internal sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary: The verse states: “And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6); and there must be enough blood in the vessel for the priest to dip his finger in it so that he does not need to wipe blood from the sides or the bottom of the vessel onto his finger. The verse states: “In the blood,” teaching that the blood is unfit for sprinkling unless there is a measure of the blood fit for dipping in the vessel from the outset, and the blood is disqualified if more blood is added to a vessel that initially contained less than the required measure. The verse states: “Sprinkle of the blood,” which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel.,And it was necessary for the Torah to write the term: “In the blood,” as well as the term: “And the priest shall dip.” As, had the Merciful One written only: “And the priest shall dip,” I would say that if there is sufficient blood at the time of dipping, even though there was not a measure of blood fit for dipping in the vessel from the beginning, it is nevertheless fit for dipping. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “In the blood,” to teach that there must be sufficient blood from the beginning.,And if the Merciful One had written only: “In the blood,” I would say that if at the beginning there was an appropriate measure of blood, it is not necessary for the vessel to retain a measure of enough blood throughout the whole rite, and even if he eventually wipes blood off of the vessel onto his finger, it is sufficient for sprinkling. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And the priest shall dip,” to teach that there must remain enough blood to dip his finger each time.,The cited baraita states: The verse states: “Sprinkle of the blood,” which teaches that he must sprinkle of the blood that is mentioned in this matter, which is the blood in the vessel. The Gemara asks: In order to exclude what was this mentioned? Rava said: This serves to exclude the remainder of the blood that is on the priest’s finger after sprinkling, which may not be used for further sprinkling, as he must dip his finger in the blood again for each sprinkle. Rava continues: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: The remainder of the blood that is on the priest’s finger after sprinkling is unfit for further sprinkling.,Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rav, i.e., Rava: Your student says that Rav Amram says: We already learn a baraita opposing Rabbi Elazar’s opinion: If a priest was sprinkling the blood of an internal sin offering, and a sprinkle sprayed from his hand onto a garment, the halakha depends on the circumstances. If it sprayed before he sprinkled, the garment requires laundering, but if it sprayed once he has sprinkled, it does not require laundering.,Ravin bar Rav Adda explains: What, is it not this that the baraita is saying: If the blood sprayed on a garment before the priest concluded sprinkling, the garment requires laundering, even if it sprayed from the remainder on his finger; but if it sprayed once the priest has concluded sprinkling, it does not require laundering? This indicates that blood sprayed from the remainder on his finger requires laundering, so it must be fit for sprinkling. Rava replied: No, this is what the baraita is saying: If the blood sprayed on a garment before the sprinkling has left his hand, it requires laundering, but if it sprayed once the sprinkling has left his hand, the remainder on his finger does not require laundering if it then sprays onto a garment.,Abaye raised an objection to Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from what is taught about sprinkling the blood of the red heifer in a mishna (Para 3:9): When the priest has concluded sprinkling the blood, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer. Evidently, if he concluded sprinkling, yes, he does wipe his hand; but if he did not conclude sprinkling, he does not wipe his hand, even though a remainder is left on his finger. Evidently, this remainder is fit for sprinkling. Rava said to him: The mishna is to be understood otherwise: If he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his entire hand on the body of the red heifer; but if he has not concluded sprinkling, he wipes only his finger after each sprinkling.,The Gemara asks: Granted, if he concluded sprinkling, he wipes his hand on the body of the red heifer, as it is stated: “And the heifer shall be burned in his sight; its skin, and its flesh, and its blood” (Numbers 19:5), indicating that the remaining blood must be incinerated together with the flesh. But on what does he wipe his finger after each sprinkling, since he must not wipe it on the body of the heifer, which might cause hair to stick to his finger, interfering with the sprinkling? Abaye said: He wipes his finger on the lip of the bowl holding the blood for sprinkling, as it is written: “Atoning bowls [keforei] of gold” (Ezra 1:10). The atoning bowls are so named because the priest wipes his finger on them, and the word keforei indicates cleansing by way of wiping (see Ḥullin 8b).,MISHNA: Apropos laundering the blood of a sin offering from garments onto which it sprayed, the mishna discusses what is considered a garment. If the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto the hide of an animal before it was flayed from the animal, the hide does not require laundering, because its status is not that of a garment, which is susceptible to ritual impurity. If the blood sprayed onto the hide after it was flayed, it requires laundering; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.,Rabbi Elazar says: Even if the blood sprayed onto the hide after it was flayed, it does not require laundering until it is crafted into a vessel or garment that is actually susceptible to ritual impurity. This is the principle with regard to laundering: A garment must be laundered only in the place where the blood was sprayed, and only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering.,With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these require laundering. And the laundering must be performed in a sacred place, the Temple courtyard, and the breaking of an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed in a sacred place, and scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed in a sacred place. With regard to this matter, a stringency applies to a sin offering more than it applies to offerings of the most sacred order.,GEMARA: With regard to blood sprayed on a flayed hide, from where are these matters, i.e., the divergent opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived? The Gemara explains: They are derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to laundering: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment” (Leviticus 6:20). I have derived only a garment; from where do I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed? The same verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled,” to include any item on which the blood sprayed.,One might have thought that I would include a hide even before it was flayed. To counter this, the verse states: “Garment.” Consequently, just as any manner of garment is an item fit to become ritually impure if one intends to use it, e.g., making it a patch for his clothing, so too the requirement of laundering applies to any item that becomes fit to become ritually impure when one intends to use it as is. A hide is fit to become ritually impure after it has been flayed, when one intends to use it for a rug or the like; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.,Rabbi Elazar holds that, even after it is flayed, the hide does not require laundering. In interpreting the verse, he says: The verse states: “Garment,” and from this I have derived only a garment; from where do I include sackcloth 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.,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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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?,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: 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.,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.,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.,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?,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.,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.,§ 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.”,§ 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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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. The Gemara answers that Rav Huna’s statement means that it is ritually impure by rabbinic law, since the Sages decreed the small cloth impure lest one fail to tear a garment enough to render it truly pure. By Torah law, this small cloth is torn enough to be ritually pure, so that one may bring it back into the Temple courtyard to launder it.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to an earthenware vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains and became ritually impure outside the curtains, one punctures the vessel to render it ritually pure, brings the vessel back into the courtyard, and breaks it there. The Gemara asks: Why is there a need to break the earthenware vessel after puncturing it? The Merciful One states: “The earthenware vessel…shall be broken” (Leviticus 6:21), and, once it is punctured, it is not a vessel. The Gemara explains: When it is punctured with a hole only the size of a small root, the earthenware vessel is purified from the ritual impurity it contracted, but it remains a vessel for other purposes, such as holding fruit.,The mishna teaches: With regard to a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked that went outside the curtains and became ritually impure outside the curtains, one breaks the vessel by boring a large hole in it to render it ritually pure, brings the vessel back into the courtyard, and scours and rinses it there. The Gemara asks: Why should the copper vessel be scoured and rinsed? After all, once the hole is bored, this is not a vessel anymore. The Gemara explains: When he hammers it and refashions it into a vessel, he must scour and rinse it.,§ Earlier (94b–95a), the Gemara discusses a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed; if it has contracted ritual impurity outside of the Temple courtyard, it must be torn before it is brought back into the courtyard to be laundered. Reish Lakish says: If the robe of the High Priest upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed has contracted ritual impurity outside of the Temple courtyard, one does not tear it; rather, he brings it in to the courtyard gradually, in portions less than the measure of a garment susceptible to impurity, which is three by three fingerbreadths, and he launders it section by section as the robe crosses the threshold. The ritually impure robe must be brought into the courtyard in this manner because it is stated with regard to the High Priest’s robe: “It shall not be torn” (Exodus 28:32).,Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection based upon a mishna (Kelim 28:8): The particularly thick garments and the soft garments are not subject to the standard measure of three by three fingerbreadths, with regard to determining their susceptibility to becoming ritually impure. Because of their particular qualities, such garments are useful only when they are larger and are not considered significant items when they measure three by three. Since the High Priest’s robe is a thick garment, why must one bring it into the courtyard only in portions of less than three by three?,The Gemara answers: With regard to the whole robe of the High Priest, which is a garment of particular significance, even the small portions of the robe are significant due to their source garment, and are susceptible to impurity in portions measuring three by three fingerbreadths.,§ The Gemara asks a fundamental question with regard to the procedure for laundering a garment upon which the blood of a sin offering has sprayed: But isn’t it so that laundering requires seven abrasive substances? As Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Blood of a sin offering that has sprayed on a garment, and shades of leprous marks on garments, which are subject to laundering (see Leviticus 13:54), require the seven abrasive substances used as laundering agents; and these substances include urine (Nidda 61b). And it is taught in a baraita: But urine is not brought into the Temple, because it is inappropriate for the Temple, although urine is theoretically suitable for use in the preparation of the incense spices. Accordingly, how is a garment laundered in the Temple? The Gemara rejects a solution: And if you would say that the urine is absorbed together with the rest of the seven abrasive substances used as laundering agents, and one applies all of them at once to the garment, such that the urine is not discernable separately, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in a mishna that this method is invalid? The mishna states (Nidda 62a): If one applied them not according to their prescribed order, or if one applied all seven substances simultaneously, he has done nothing, and the laundering has not been effective.,The Gemara rejects another solution: And if you would say that the urine is absorbed together with only one of the cleansing substances, that is difficult: But didn’t we learn in that mishna: One must rub the garment three times with each and every one of those substances independently? The Gemara resolves: Rather, it must be explained that the urine is absorbed in tasteless saliva, which comes from one who has not eaten since waking; as Reish Lakish says: Tasteless saliva must accompany each and every one of the substances applied to the garment.,MISHNA: Whether with regard to a copper vessel in which one cooked the meat of an offering or whether with regard to one into which one poured the boiling meat of an offering, whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, such vessels require scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says: Vessels in which offerings of lesser sanctity were cooked or poured do not require scouring and rinsing.,GEMARA: Concerning the statement in the mishna that these halakhot also apply to a vessel into which a boiling cooked dish was poured, the Gemara notes that the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “In which it is cooked” (Leviticus 6:21). I have derived only that this applies to a vessel in which one cooked the sin offering. From where do I derive that it applies also to a vessel into which one poured a boiling cooked dish? The verse states more fully: “But the earthenware vessel in which it is cooked shall be broken.” Since the verse employs the phrase: “In which it is…shall be broken,” that teaches that if the hot meat is in the vessel, whether cooked or poured into the vessel, these halakhot apply to it, and if it is an earthenware vessel it must be broken.,§ Rami bar Ḥama raises a dilemma: If one suspended the meat of a sin offering in the airspace of an earthenware oven in order to roast it, what is the halakha? When the verse requires the breaking of the earthenware vessel, is it only with regard to both cooking and the resultant absorption of the offering’s flavor into the vessel that the Merciful One is particular? If so, an oven would not need to be broken simply because an offering has been roasted within its airspace. Or perhaps, is the Merciful One particular even about cooking in the vessel without absorption of the flavor, and therefore, if meat is roasted while suspended in this oven, the vessel must still be broken?,Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from the mishna: Whether with regard to a copper vessel in which one cooked the meat of an offering or whether with regard to one into which one poured the boiling meat of an offering, the earthenware vessel must be broken. Therefore, the vessel must be broken even if the meat was not cooked in it but only absorbed in its walls, indicating that even if cooking and absorption do not occur together, just one of the two should suffice to require the breaking of the vessel.,The Gemara rejects the proof: The halakha in a case of the absorption of flavor into an earthenware vessel without cooking the meat in that vessel, as in the case of pouring, was not raised as a dilemma to us. If the boiling offering has been poured into a vessel, the vessel certainly must be broken, since earthenware never fully emits all that it absorbed. When a scenario was raised as a dilemma to us, it was with regard to cooking meat in the vessel without absorption of the flavor by that vessel, as in the case of roasting suspended meat. In such a case, what is the halakha?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, deduced from that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven of the Temple was fashioned of metal. And if it enters your mind that with regard to cooking in a vessel without absorption, the Merciful One is not particular and does not require the breaking of a vessel used in such a fashion, then the oven should be made of earthenware. The Gemara rejects this proof: Since there are the remainders of meal offerings, whose baking is performed in the oven, and there is both cooking and absorption into the oven, as the remains of the meal offerings would be baked directly on the walls of the oven, for this reason alone the oven would have to be broken if it were fashioned of earthenware. Consequently, we fashion it of metal.,§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain oven that was smeared with animal fat all over its walls and floor. Rabba bar Ahilai prohibited eating bread baked in that oven forever, and he prohibited even eating the bread with salt alone, lest one come to eat it with kutaḥ, a dish made from milk, water, salt, and bread crumbs. According to Rabba bar Ahilai, the oven will never fully eliminate the fat.,The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: With regard to baking bread, one may not knead the dough with milk, and if one nevertheless kneaded the dough with milk, all of the bread made from that dough is forbidden, because one might become accustomed to sin. As one habitually eats bread with meat, he might also eat this bread with meat and unwittingly transgress the prohibition against eating meat with milk.,The baraita continues: Similarly, one may not smear [tashin] the inside of an oven with the fat of a sheep’s tail, because the fat of the tail has the halakha of meat. And if one nevertheless smeared the oven with the fat of the tail, all of the bread baked in it is forbidden, until one kindles the oven and burns off this fat. Evidently, the bread baked after the oven is kindled again is permitted, because the oven is considered cleansed of the meat fat. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of Rava bar Ahilai, who says that the oven never fully eliminates the fat, is indeed a conclusive refutation.,Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Since the statement of Rava bar Ahilai was conclusively refuted, why does Rav say that pots that were used for leavened bread must be broken before Passover? Presumably, the leavened bread could be burned out of them through kindling instead. Rav Ashi said to him: Rav construes that ruling of the baraita, according to which the fat can be burned out of the oven, as referring to an oven fashioned of metal, which cleanses the fat when kindled. In the case of earthenware vessels, additional kindling is insufficient, because the flavor absorbed within it cannot be cleansed by fire.,Or if you wish, say instead that the baraita is also referring to an earthenware oven, and there is another distinction. This oven is kindled from the inside, and a fire kindled inside the oven suffices to cleanse absorbed flavor. But that pot is kindled from the outside while it rests on the stove, and the heat absorbed in that manner is insufficient to cleanse absorbed flavor.,The Gemara suggests: And let us also perform the kindling of the pot from the inside, in order to cleanse that which has been absorbed. The Gemara answers: This solution is not feasible; the owners of such pots might be concerned for them, as they are apt to break if the heat becomes too great. Consequently, the owners will not apply sufficient heat to ensure that the absorbed flavor will be completely cleansed. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, with regard to this earthenware tile [kuvya], which is used on the fire as a baking pan and its kindling is from the outside, it becomes prohibited for subsequent use by the flavors absorbed within, which cannot be cleansed. The Gemara challenges: But according to the opinion that earthenware vessels can be cleansed of their absorbed substances by the process of kindling, with regard to pots used in the Temple, why does the Merciful One state in the Torah that they should be broken? Let us simply return them to the kilns in which pots are made to be sure that the pots will be cleansed by the extreme heat of the kilns. Rabbi Zeira said: The pots cannot be returned to kilns because, as taught in a baraita (see Bava Kamma 82b), kilns are not built in Jerusalem because of the great quantity of smoke they produce.,The Gemara presents an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s answer. Abaye said: But if, as the baraita teaches, there are no kilns in Jerusalem, are scrap heaps of earthenware assembled in the Temple courtyard? The same baraita also teaches that there are no scrap heaps in Jerusalem. What, then, is done with the shards of earthenware vessels that must be broken in the courtyard? The Gemara dismisses the question: Abaye raised that objection only because that which Shemaya taught in Kalnevo escaped him; Shemaya taught there: In the Temple, shards of earthenware vessels were miraculously absorbed in their place.,The Gemara returns to the topic of kindling earthenware vessels and asks: But if kindling from within cleanses everything absorbed in an earthenware oven, what is the reason for that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven in the Temple was fashioned of metal? Let us fashion it of earthenware, as an oven’s kindling is from the inside, and, accordingly, it would be possible to cleanse it?,The Gemara answers: The reason the oven must be fashioned of metal is because there are the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat, and the shewbread, i.e., the bread baked each week in a special form and displayed for the duration of one whole week on the table in the Sanctuary, whose baking is done in the oven, and also whose sanctification occurs in the oven. Because these offerings are not kneaded in a service vessel, they are sanctified only by being placed in the oven, and therefore the oven is a service vessel; and we do not make a service vessel of earthenware. And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says only that a service vessel may be fashioned of wood, which is a somewhat significant material, but with regard to a service vessel fashioned of earthenware, he holds that this is not valid.,§ The Gemara relates an incident related to the halakha of scouring and rinsing. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda was initially accustomed to study Torah before Rami bar Ḥama. After some time, he left him and went to study before Rav Sheshet. One day Rami bar Ḥama met him and said to him colloquially: Did you assume, as many do, that when the chief of taxes [alkafta] grasped me by the hand, the fragrance of his hand came to my hand? Do you think that because you went away from me in order to study before Rav Sheshet, have you become like Rav Sheshet merely by association?,Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: It is not due to that reason that I went to study before Rav Sheshet, but for another reason. As for you, Master, when I ask with regard to any matter, Master resolves the question for me through reasoning. Consequently, when I find a mishna that opposes that reasoning, it refutes Master’s proposed resolution. As for Rav Sheshet, when I ask of him a question concerning any matter, he resolves the question for me by citing a mishna. Consequently, when I also find a mishna, and that mishna refutes the proposed resolution, it is a dispute between one mishna and another mishna, which does not necessarily refute the mishna that he cited.,Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Ask me about a matter, which I will resolve for you in accordance with a mishna. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda asked him: If one cooked a sin offering in only part of a vessel, does the entire vessel require scouring and rinsing, or does it not require scouring and rinsing? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: The entire vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, just as it is taught concerning sprinkling the blood of a sin offering upon a garment. In the latter case, the mishna teaches (93b) that one must launder only the part of the garment on which the blood sprayed.,Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda replied: But the tanna does not teach this explicitly. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that the scouring and rinsing of a vessel in which sacred meat was cooked should be like the laundering of a garment, as follows: Just as a garment requires laundering only in the place where the blood was sprayed, so too, it must be that a vessel requires scouring and rinsing only in the place where the meat underwent the process of cooking.,Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: Are the situations comparable? Blood does not spread and penetrate all parts of the garment, but in the case of cooking, the flavor of the meat spreads throughout the entire vessel. Additionally, your reasoning opposes that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:15): A certain stringency applies to sprinkling more than it applies to scouring and rinsing; and a certain stringency applies to scouring and rinsing more than it applies to sprinkling.,The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to sprinkling is that the halakha of the sprinkling of blood on a garment applies to external sin offerings, brought on the altar in the Temple courtyard, and to internal sin offerings, whose blood is sprinkled on the altar in the Sanctuary; and the halakha of blood sprayed onto a garment applies if it sprays before the required sprinkling of the offering’s blood on the altar; which is not so in the case of scouring and rinsing. Scouring and rinsing are required only for external sin offerings, whose meat is eaten and therefore cooked; and it applies only after the sprinkling of blood on the altar, after which the meat may be eaten.,The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to scouring and rinsing is that the scouring and rinsing of vessels is practiced both for offerings of the most sacred order and for offerings of lesser sanctity; and even if one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing, which is not so in the case of errantly sprinkling blood onto a garment, for which one must launder only the place on which the blood sprayed.,Rami bar Ḥama said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. The Gemara then clarifies: And what is the reason that an entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing even if one cooked the meat of an offering in only part of the vessel? The reason is that the verse states: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21). From the phrase “in a copper vessel” it is derived that even if the meat is cooked in only part of a vessel, the entire vessel must be scoured and rinsed.,§ The mishna teaches: Whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, the vessels in which it is cooked must be scoured and rinsed. The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught: The Torah introduces the mitzva of scouring and rinsing with the qualifying statement: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18). From this verse I have derived only that the halakha with regard to scouring and rinsing applies to vessels in which a sin offering was cooked. From where do I derive that this halakha applies to vessels used for all sacrificial meat? The verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22), to teach that this halakha applies to vessels used for all of the sacrificial meat that the priests eat.,The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should include vessels used for cooking teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as well, as it is also sacred and may be eaten only by a priest (see Leviticus 22:14). To counter this, the verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22). The emphatic qualifier “of it” excludes teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings of the most sacred order require scouring and rinsing, but offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, as it is written: “Most sacred.” Accordingly, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, yes, scouring and rinsing is required; but for offerings of lesser sanctity, no, it is not required.,The Gemara asks: The baraita explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning; what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: Since the qualifying term “of it” was necessary to exclude teruma, by inference, it must be that vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity require scouring and rinsing. If even offerings of lesser sanctity are excluded from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, it would be self-evident that the vessel used for teruma is exempt from scouring and rinsing. Accordingly, the direct exclusion of teruma indicates that the vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity are not excluded. And Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The term “of it” teaches a different halakha and excludes a disqualified sin offering from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, as we say earlier in this chapter (93a).,The Gemara asks: And is it correct that with regard to a copper vessel used to cook teruma, it does not require rinsing and scouring? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 8:16): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it; and if one cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to it. Similarly, if one cooked teruma in a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one cooked non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the mixture sacred if it imparts flavor to it. Therefore, a pot requires purging with boiling liquid in order to expel the flavor of teruma from it.,Three amora’im address the apparent inconsistency that while the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, the baraita teaches that these vessels must be purged. Abaye said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: If one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing. By contrast, in this case, if teruma was cooked in only part of a vessel, one must perform scouring and rinsing only in the place of the cooking, and not in the whole vessel.,Rava said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, that is necessary only for that which the Master said: The verse specifies: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21), but the vessel is not to be scoured and rinsed in wine. It must be scoured and rinsed “in water,” but not in diluted wine. By contrast, in this case, i.e., the vessel in which teruma was cooked, it may be scoured and rinsed even in wine, and even in diluted wine.,Rabba bar Ulla said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: One must perform scouring and rinsing with cold water, in addition to purging a vessel of its absorbed flavors with boiling water. By contrast, in this case, i.e., with regard to the vessel in which teruma was cooked, one may cleanse the vessel even by performing only the purging with boiling water, which removes the residue of the forbidden food, and omitting the cold water processes entirely.,The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that scouring and rinsing are performed with cold water; but according to the one who says that scouring is done by purging with hot water, and rinsing is a different procedure performed with cold water, what can be said? According to this opinion, the verse is also referring to purging; and if the verse excludes vessels used for teruma, how does the baraita teach that such vessels must be purged? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion that differentiates scouring, which is done with boiling water, from rinsing, which is done with cold water, the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma only from the additional rinsing that the Torah requires after the scouring.,MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a copper vessel from the beginning of the pilgrimage Festival, one may cook in it for the entire pilgrimage Festival; he need not scour and rinse the vessel after every use. And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, the cleaning done when wine sticks to the cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup. Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water. With regard to the spit and the metal grill [askela], one purges them in hot water.,GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a vessel from the beginning of the Festival, one may cook in it for the entire Festival without scouring and rinsing the vessel after every use and without being concerned that he is eating forbidden leftover meat. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Tarfon? The Gemara answers: It is as the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall roast and eat it in the place that the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents” (Deuteronomy 16:7). Although one does not leave Jerusalem on the first morning of Passover, the verse has rendered all of those days over which one remains there equal to one morning.,Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami objects to this: Can it be that all of the days of the Festival are considered a single day? But is there no prohibition against bringing an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] during a pilgrimage Festival? And is there no prohibition of notar, consuming sacrificial meat beyond its appointed time, during a pilgrimage Festival? Both these prohibitions are based on the premise that each offering may be eaten over a limited time far less than the duration of the entire Festival.,And if you would say: Indeed, neither piggul nor notar apply during a Festival, that is difficult: But it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: Rabbi Tarfon said that an entire Festival is considered a single day only with regard to this, the halakhot of scouring and rinsing, alone, and not with regard to other halakhot, including piggul and notar. Evidently, his opinion is not based on the cited verse.,The Gemara continues: Rather, one must explain that Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion accords with that which Rav Naḥman says citing Rabba bar Avuh. As Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Scouring and rinsing does not need to be done every day in order to avoid eating the taste of forbidden leftover meat, because while the vessels are used for repeatedly cooking various types of sacrificial meat, the meat of each and every day becomes a purging agent for the other food, that which is already absorbed in the vessel from the prior day. Therefore, only after the Festival, when the vessel is not being used, must the pot be scoured and rinsed.,§ The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. What is the mishna saying? Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: One waits for the copper vessel so long as it remains the period of partaking, and then he performs scouring and rinsing on it.,From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Abba Yosei bar Abba: It is written about a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21); and it is written in the following verse: “Every male among the priests may eat it.” How so, i.e., what are the verses teaching through this juxtaposition? One waits with it until the end of the period of partaking and then performs scouring and rinsing on it.,§ The mishna teaches: Scouring is like the scouring of a cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of a cup; and scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water. The Sages taught in a baraita: Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.,What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? They hold that this halakha is just as it is with regard to purging the used vessels acquired from gentiles, for which purging the forbidden absorptions must be performed with hot water. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: I do not say this statement about purging, which must certainly be performed with hot water. Rather, when I say my opinion, it is with regard to the mitzva of scouring and rinsing, which is performed after purging.,And the Rabbis could reply: If so, that scouring and rinsing are both performed in the same manner, let the verse write the same verb to describe both processes, namely either: It shall be scoured and scoured in water, or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed in water. What is meant by the formula: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water”? Conclude from the use of two verbs that scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.,And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could reply: If it were written: It shall be scoured and scoured, or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed, I would say that the vessel must be scoured two times, or that it must be rinsed two times. Therefore, it is written: “It shall be scoured and rinsed,” to tell you that even if both are performed with cold water, there are two distinct actions: Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup.,MISHNA: If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, or the meat of offerings of the most sacred order and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, the status of the food depends upon the taste of the stringent substance. If there is enough of the more sacred meat to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures must be eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components therein, insofar as who may partake of them, as well as the time when and the place where they may be eaten. And the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. With regard to these principles, the lenient components do not assume the status of the stringent components.,In the case of a fit wafer that touched an unfit wafer or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces of meat are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces.,GEMARA: According to the mishna, if the more sacred meat imparts flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient meat is to be treated in the same manner as the more sacred meat. Concurrently, their vessels do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Is this not inconsistent? The Gemara answers: The mishna must be understood otherwise: If there is enough of the more sacred meat to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures must be eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do disqualify pieces of meat through contact.,The Gemara continues: If the more sacred meat is not sufficient to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures are not eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact.,The Gemara asks: If the offerings of the most sacred order do not impart taste to the offerings of lesser sanctity, granted, the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook offerings of the most sacred order. But isn’t it so that the vessels should nevertheless require scouring and rinsing by virtue of having been used for offerings of lesser sanctity?,Abaye said: What is the meaning of: Do not require, which the mishna states? It means only that the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook offerings of the most sacred order, but they do require scouring and rinsing as vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity. Rava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing at all.,The Gemara analyzes: Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, or the meat of offerings of the most sacred order and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity. The mishna provides a second scenario in order to teach that vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, why do I need two cases to teach the single principle that a substance is nullified if its presence is insufficient to impart flavor?,The Gemara answers: Even according to Abaye, both cases are necessary, in order to teach a halakha with regard to nullification. As, had the mishna taught only the case of sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, I would say that it is non-sacred meat that can nullify sacrificial meat, as sacrificial meat is not its type. But with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say: The offerings of lesser sanctity do not nullify those other offerings, because they are of the same type.,And had the mishna taught only the case of offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say that it is sacrificial meat that is strong enough to nullify other sacrificial meat; but with regard to non-sacred meat, I would say: It is not strong enough to nullify sacrificial meat. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.,§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a fit wafer that reached an unfit wafer or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces. In relation to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20). One might have thought that this applies to all contact, even if the other piece did not absorb any flavor from the meat of the sin offering. To counter this, the same verse states: “With its flesh [bivsarah]” which can also be translated: In its flesh. This teaches that this halakha does not apply unless the other food absorbs something of the sin offering into its meat.,One might have thought that if the sin offering touched part of a piece of something that absorbed flavor from the sin offering, the entire piece should become disqualified. To counter this, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20), to teach that only the section that touches the sin offering is disqualified. How so? What can be done with an item when a section of it is disqualified? One slices off the section of the piece that absorbed the disqualified matter. Additionally, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh,” but an item is not disqualified if it touches the sin offering’s sinews, nor its bones, nor its horns, nor its hooves.,§ The baraita continues to interpret the same verse. “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred,” teaches: Whatever touches it becomes like it, with regard to its status. How so? If the sin offering is disqualified, due to any disqualification, whatever touches it becomes disqualified. And if it is fit, whatever touches it must be eaten in accordance with the stringent regulations that apply to the sin offering. Therefore, a piece of meat that touches the meat of a sin offering may be eaten only in accordance with the terms of the consumption of a sin offering, e.g., it may be eaten only by male priests, and only for one day and one night.,The Gemara asks: If sacrificial meat touched the meat of a disqualified sin offering, why should the sacrificial meat become forbidden? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the sacrificial meat come and override the prohibition against eating the disqualified substance that was absorbed in it? Rava said: A positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.,Rav’s opinion relates to that which is taught in a baraita: As it is stated in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: “Nor shall you break a bone of it” (Exodus 12:46). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow are included in the prohibition. This statement is analyzed: If one means to break a bone in order to eat its marrow, why would that be prohibited? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the edible parts of the offering, including the marrow, come and override the prohibition of not breaking a bone of the Paschal offering? Rather, it must be that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.,Rav Ashi said: If sacrificial meat touches a disqualified sin offering, this is not simply a case of a positive mitzva in conflict with a prohibition. Because the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20), treating the item as consecrated is itself a positive mitzva. Consequently, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition stand in opposition to eating that sacrificial meat, and a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.,§ With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.” The Gemara asks: We found a source teaching that with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches becomes sanctified through that which is absorbed from the sin offering. From where do we derive that this is also the halakha concerning the rest of the sacred offerings? Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: It is stated: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). This verse connects all of the specified offerings, such that individual aspects of each offering are applicable to all of the offerings.,The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states “of the burnt offering” to teach that all of the offerings are like a burnt offering in that just as a burnt offering requires a utensil in its preparation, so too do all animal offerings require a utensil. What is the utensil? If we say it is a bowl, a utensil used for collecting the blood, as was used in the burnt offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai, that cannot be correct, since the source for a vessel for collecting blood does not need to be derived from the use of one in a burnt offering. With regard to communal peace offerings it is also written of them: “And they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings…And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins” (Exodus 24:5–6).,Rather, the term: Utensil, must be stated of a knife, as the slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a burnt offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from that which is written: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: “And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son” (Genesis 22:13).,The Gemara continues to expound the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 7:37). When the verse mentions a meal offering, it teaches that just as a meal offering is eaten only by males of the priesthood (see Leviticus 6:9–11), so too are all of the offerings mentioned in this verse eaten only by males of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what offering is it that this halakha must be derived? If one suggests it is with regard to the sin offering and the guilt offering, this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:6).,And if one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse that is stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: “In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it” (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.,The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im. There is one tanna who derives it, the halakha that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, from here, i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; and there is one tanna who derives it from there, i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.,The Gemara continues expounding the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings.” “Sin offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.,“Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it, because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, so too for any of the offerings mentioned in the verse, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred if found within it. The Gemara notes: Evidently, this tanna holds that with regard to the offspring of sacrificial animals, they are sanctified only as they are from the moments of their births, but not in utero. And he also holds that one derives the possible from the impossible, so that the halakha of a fetal sac and of a placenta concerning female animals may be derived from the halakha of a male animal.,“Inauguration offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the inauguration offering, the rams and the bread of that offering, which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, their leftovers were disposed of by incineration, as is stated: “And if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire” (Exodus 29:34), and no living animals were among their leftovers designated for incineration; so too for all offerings mentioned, their leftovers are disposed of by incineration, and there are no living animals counted among their leftovers to be incinerated. Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.,“Peace offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the peace offering, its components can render an animal disqualified as an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] and can be rendered piggul; so too with regard to all offerings mentioned in this verse, their components render an animal disqualified as piggul and can be rendered piggul.,§ With regard to the verse at the center of the prior exchange (Leviticus 7:37), the Gemara states: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From the term “meal offering,” it is derived: Just as with regard to a meal offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, as it is stated: “Whatever shall touch them shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:11); so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.,The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a meal offering, and it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a sin offering. As, had the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to a meal offering, I would say that since it is soft, it is absorbed and, therefore it sanctifies what it touches. But with regard to the meat of a sin offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. And had it taught us this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, I would say that because, on account of its fattiness, it oozes into whatever it touches, it sanctifies it. But with regard to a meal offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to write both.,The cited baraita continues: “Sin offering” teaches: Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred animals and is sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and its service must be performed with the priest’s right hand; so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each one’s service must be performed with the priest’s right hand. And with regard to a sin offering, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said: The verse states: “And Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his” (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come from his cattle, and not from communal property, and not from money upon which the second tithe has been redeemed.,The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Is this principle not derived from the conspicuous expression: “On the day of His commanding” (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason [kedi], and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.,The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita teach that the halakha of the sin offering teaches that the rites of an offering must be performed with the priest’s right hand? Is this not derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Reish Lakish says: In any place in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger, or that it is performed by priesthood, the halakha is that the rite is performed only with the right hand. This is derived from the Torah’s statement with regard to the leper: “And the priest shall dip his right finger” (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason, since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement.,The Gemara suggest: And if you wish, say that the tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Where the verse mentions a finger, it is not necessary for the verse to mention priesthood; but where it mentions priesthood, it is necessary for the verse to mention a finger, in order to teach that the rite must be performed with the right hand, which is not self-evident. With regard to the assorted offerings itemized in the verse (Leviticus 7:37), the Torah does not mention a finger; therefore, they must be derived from the halakha of a sin offering.,The cited baraita continues: “Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, its bones have no sanctity and are permitted for any use, so too with regard to any mentioned offering, its bones are permitted.,§ Rava said: It is obvious to me that when the blood of a sin offering is below and the blood of a burnt offering is above, in a case in which the blood of a burnt offering is sprayed as a second layer on top of the blood of a sin offering that has already been sprayed and absorbed into a garment, the garment requires laundering.,Rava asks: When the blood of a burnt offering is below and the blood of a sin offering is above, what is the halakha? Is one required to launder a garment to remove the blood of a sin offering because the blood touches his garment, and in this case, this blood is touching the garment? Or perhaps is one required to launder it because of the absorption of the blood into the garment, and, in this case, since the garment has already absorbed the other blood, this garment did not absorb the blood? Rava then resolves his dilemma, ruling that such garments do not require laundering.,§ In a similar manner, with regard to the immersion of a garment that has become impure, Rava said: It is obvious to me that if there is blood on one’s garment, it interposes between the water of immersion and the garment, such that the immersion is ineffective. But if he is a butcher, used to having blood on his garments, a bloodstain does not interpose, and the immersion is effective, since a substance is not considered an interposition if the one immersing is not particular about it. Similarly, if there is a stain of fat [revav] on one’s garment, it interposes. But if he is a fat seller, such a stain does not interpose. Rava asks: If there is both blood and fat on one’s garment when he immerses it, what is the halakha?,The Gemara challenges the question: If he is a butcher, let me derive that the stain interposes due to the fat that he is not used to having on his garments; and conversely, if he is a fat seller, let me derive that the stain interposes due to the stain of blood that he is not used to having on his garments. The Gemara explains: No, this question is not superfluous; it is necessary with regard to a person who works both as this, a butcher, and as that, a fat seller. In such a case, the question is: Is it that he is not particular with regard to one stain, but he is particular with regard to two stains, so that the immersion is ineffective? Or, perhaps, is it that he is not particular even with regard to two stains, as neither is unusual for him? The Gemara provides no answer, and the question shall stand unresolved.,,MISHNA: A priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper who did not bring their requisite atonement offerings, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat, do not receive a share of sacrificial meat along with the other members of the patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, in order to partake of it in the evening after the offerings were sacrificed, even though after nightfall he would be permitted to partake of the offerings.,A priest who is an acute mourner, i.e., if one of his relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn died that day, is permitted to touch sacrificial meat, as he is not ritually impure. But he may not sacrifice offerings, and he does not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening.,Blemished priests, whether they are temporarily blemished or whether they are permanently blemished, receive a share and partake of the offerings with their priestly brethren, but do not sacrifice the offerings.,The principle is: Any priest who is unfit for the service that specific day does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat, and anyone who has no share of the meat has no share in the hides of the animals, to which the priests are entitled as well.,Even if the priest was ritually impure only at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the offering and he was pure at the time of the burning of the fats of that offering, he still does not receive a share of the meat, as it is stated: “He that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings and the fat, from among the sons of Aaron, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). One who cannot sprinkle the blood does not receive a share in the meat.