Parallel
זבחים 93
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Rami b. Hama asked R. Hisda: What if it spurted on to an unclean garment? R. Huna the son of R. Joshua observed: Since he asks thus, you may infer that he holds that if it had a period of fitness and was disqualified, its blood does not necessitate washing. [Nevertheless his question is:] is that only when they come consecutively, but not when they come simultaneously; or perhaps there is not difference? — He [R. Hisda] replied: This is a controversy of R. Eleazar and the Rabbis, in accordance with Rabbah's view, and as explained by Abaye. For it was taught: R. Eleazar said: If the water of lustration was defiled, it cleanses [an unclean person], for lo, we sprinkle [the water of lustration] upon a niddah. Now Rabbah observed: R. Eleazar said this in accordance with the thesis of R. Akiba, his teacher, who maintained that when the vessel [containing the water of lustration] is carried over an unclean place, it is as though it rested there. For we learnt: If a man stood on the outer side of an oven, and a reptile was in the oven, and he put forth his hand to the window, took a flask, and carried it across the oven, R. Akiba declares it unclean, while the Rabbis declare it clean. Now, they disagree in this: R. Akiba holds that it is as lying, while the Rabbis hold that it is not as lying [thereon]. But Abaye raised an objection: [It was taught:] R. Akiba admits that in the case of sprinkling, if one carried it over an unclean earthen vessel or over an unclean couch or seat, it is clean, for nothing defiles above as below save as much as an olive of a corpse and other things which defile through overshadowing, which includes a leprous stone! Rather said Abaye: All agree that it is not as though it lay thereon, but here they differ in this: R. Akiba holds that we enact a preventive measure, lest it lay thereon; while the Rabbis hold that we do not enact a preventive measure. But R. Akiba admits in the case of sprinkling, for since it has gone out, it has gone out. Now, wherein do R. Eleazar and the Rabbis disagree? — Said Abaye: They disagree as to whether we draw an analogy between previous defilement and contemporary defilement: one master holds that we draw an analogy, and the other master holds that we do not draw an analogy. Raba said: All hold that we do not draw an analogy; but here they disagree in this: R. Eleazar holds that sprinkling requires a [minimum] standard, and sprinklings combine; while the Rabbis hold that sprinkling does not require a [minimum] standard. THE BLOOD OF A DISQUALIFIED SIN-OFFERING etc. Our Rabbis taught: [And when there is sprinkled] of the blood thereof [that means,] of the blood of a fit [sacrifice], but not of the blood of a disqualified [one]. R. Akiba said: If it had a period of fitness and was [subsequently] disqualified, its blood necessitates washing; if it did not have a period of fitness and was disqualified ab initio, its blood does not necessitate washing. Whereas R. Simeon maintained: In both cases its blood does not necessitate washing. What is R. Simeon's reason? — ‘Thereof’ is written, and ‘of the blood thereof’ is written: one [excludes] where it had a period of fitness, and the other excludes where it did not have a period of fitness. And R. Akiba? — ‘Thereof’ excludes terumah. R. Simeon, however, is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Lesser sacrifices do not necessitate scouring and rinsing, and how much the more terumah! MISHNAH. IF [BLOOD] SPURTED [DIRECT] FROM THE [ANIMAL'S] THROAT ON TO A GARMENT, IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING; FROM THE HORN OR FROM THE BASE [OF THE ALTAR], IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING. IF IT POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND [THE PRIEST] COLLECTED IT, IT DOES NOT NEED WASHING. ONLY BLOOD WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN A VESSEL AND IS FIT FOR SPRINKLING NECESSITATES WASHING. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that, if [the blood] spurted from the throat on to the garment, it necessitates washing; therefore it states, ‘and when there is sprinkled [etc.]’: I ordered thee [to wash the garment] only when [the blood] is fit for sprinkling. Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that, if it spurted from the horn or from the base, it requires washing, therefore it states, ‘and when there shall be sprinkled’: that excludes this [blood], which was already sprinkled. IF IT POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT etc.
—
Why do I need this too? — He states the reason: What is the reason that IF IT POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND [THE PRIEST] COLLECTED IT, IT DOES NOT NEED WASHING? — Because ONLY BLOOD WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN A VESSEL AND IS FIT FOR SPRINKLING NECESSITATES WASHING. FIT FOR SPRINKLING. What does this exclude? — It excludes the case where one received less than is required for sprinkling in one vessel and less than is required for sprinkling in another vessel. For it was taught: R. Halafta b. Saul said: If he sanctified less than is required for sprinkling in one vessel, and less than is required for sprinkling in another vessel, he has not sanctified it. Now it was asked: How is it with blood? Is it a traditional law, and we cannot learn from a traditional law, or perhaps, what is the reason there? Because it is written,And a clean person shall take [hyssop,] and dip it in the water; so here too it is written, And [the priest] shall dip [his finger] in the blood? — Come and hear, for R. Zerika said in R. Eleazar's name: In the case of blood too he does not sanctify it. Raba said, It was taught: And [the priest] shall dip: but not sponge up; in the blood: there must be sufficient blood for dipping from the beginning; [and sprinkle] of the blood: of the blood specified in this passage. Now, it is necessary to write both ‘and he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’. For if the Divine Law wrote ‘and he shall dip’ [only], I would say, even where there is insufficient for dipping in the first place; therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘in the blood’. And if the Divine Law wrote ‘in the blood’ [only], I would say that he may even sponge it up; therefore the Divine Law wrote, ‘and he shall dip’. What does ‘of the blood specified in this passage’ exclude? — Said Raba: It excludes the [blood] remaining on his finger. This supports R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: The [blood] remaining on his finger is unfit. Rabin son of R. Adda said to Raba: Your disciple said in R. Amram's name: It was taught: If [the priest] was sprinkling, and [the blood of] the sprinkling spurted out of his hand, [and this happened] before he had sprinkled, it needs washing; after he had sprinkled, it does not need washing. Surely this is what he means: [If it happened] before he finished sprinkling, it needs washing; after he finished sprinkling, it does not need washing. — No: this is what he means: before the sprinkling had left his hand, it necessitates washing; after it had gone forth from his hand, it does not need washing. Abaye raised an objection to him: When he finished sprinkling, he wipes his hand on the body of the heifer. Thus, only if he finished, but not if he had not finished! — Said he to him: When he finished, he wiped his hand on the body of the heifer; before he finished, he simply wiped his finger. Now, when he finishes, it is well: he wipes his hand on the body of the heifer, as it is said, And the flesh shall he burn in his sight, [her skin, and her flesh, and her blood . . . shall be burnt]. But on what does he wipe his finger? — Said Abaye: On the edge of the bowl, as it is written, Wipers [cleansers] of gold. MISHNAH. IF [THE BLOOD] SPURTED ON TO THE SKIN, BEFORE IT WAS FLAYED, IT NEED NOT BE WASHED; [IF IT SPURTED] AFTER IT WAS FLAYED, IT MUST BE WASHED: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. ELEAZAR SAID: [IT NEED NOT BE WASHED] EVEN [IF IT SPURTED] AFTER IT WAS FLAYED. ONLY THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD NEEDS WASHING. AND WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS, AND IS FIT FOR WASHING, WHETHER A GARMENT, A SACK, OR A HIDE, MUST BE WASHED. THE WASHING MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE; THE BREAKING OF AN EARTHEN VESSEL MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE; AND THE SCOURING AND RINSING OF A BRAZEN VESSEL MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE. IN THIS THE SIN-OFFERING IS MORE STRINGENT THAN [OTHER] SACRIFICES OF HIGHER SANCTITY. GEMARA. How do we know it? — Because our Rabbis taught: [And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon] a garment: I know it only of a garment: whence do I know to include the skin, after it is flayed? Because it says, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled. You might think that I include the skin [even] before it was flayed: therefore it states, ‘a garment’: as a garment is an article eligible to contract uncleanness, so everything that is eligible to contract uncleanness [is included]: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Eleazar said: ‘A garment’: I know it only of a garment; whence do I know to include a sack
—