זבחים 93:1 — Soncino English Talmud

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.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ

^ᵃnote:Whereby the blood was defiled, and so disqualified for sprinkling. Do we regard it as though it were defiled before it touched the garment, and hence does not necessitate washing; or perhaps the defilement of the blood and the obligation to wash the garment came simultaneously?
^ᵇnote:He asks only if it fell on an unclean garment; hence he holds that if the blood was defiled before it fell, thus having been fit and then become disqualified, it certainly does not necessitate washing. But his question is whether that is only where these came consecutively, i.e., first the blood was disqualified and then it spurted on to the garment; or does it hold good even when both are simultaneous?
^ᶜnote:Running water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer; this was sprinkled on a person defiled through the dead as a purificatory rite; v. Num. XIX.
^ᵈnote:Just as though it had not been defiled.
^ᵉnote:If a niddah was defiled through the dead, thereby becoming doubly unclean, both as a niddah and as one defiled by the dead, we besprinkle her with the water of lustration, while she is still a niddah, and the subsequent immersion counts for both forms of uncleanness, since we do not find Scripture ordering her first to perform immersion as a niddah and then to be besprinkled and repeat her immersion on account of her defilement through the dead. Now, as the water of lustration touches her, it is defiled itself through contact with a niddah, and yet it cleanses her. Now the analogy is apparently faulty, for here the defilement of the water and its sprinkling upon the woman are simultaneous, whereas R. Eleazar speaks of a case where the water was defiled first. Rabbah proceeds to explain why R. Eleazar regards it nevertheless as a true analogy.
^ᶠnote:And unclean.
^ᵍnote:An oven stood near a wall, in which was a window with a flask containing water of lustration; inside the oven lay a reptile, which made it unclean. A man, standing on the outer side of the oven, took the flask from the window, and in taking it to himself naturally carried it above the oven, through the air-space.
^ʰnote:On the oven, and is therefore defiled by it.
^ⁱnote:I.e.,if the water of lustration was sprinkled upon an unclean person, and in its passage passed over unclean vessels etc., it remains clean.
^ʲnote:Nothing defiles anything above, passing through its air-space, as when it is below, actually touching it.
^ᵏnote:Lit. ‘tent’. This is a technical expression denoting defilement caused by the defiler being under the same covering (technically called a tent) as the defiled. E.g., everything in a room containing a corpse, or as much as an olive of a corpse, is unclean through being under the same covering as the corpse.
^ˡnote:All things, both animate and inanimate, smitten with leprosy, defile through overshadowing. — Now, an oven unclean through a reptile does not defile through overshadowing. Hence this contradicts Rabbah's statement that R. Akiba holds there too that the air-space above an article defiles the water of lustration just as though it touched it.
^ᵐnote:We declare this vessel unclean, lest one think that even if it actually lay on the oven it is still clean. Sh.M. emends: lest one lay it (thereon). — Thus the vessel (and, of course, its contents) are only Rabbinically unclean, but clean by Scriptural law.
^ⁿnote:Where not the vessel but the water itself passed through the air-space of something unclean, as it was sprinkled.
^ᵒnote:Since the water leaves the priest's hand as he sprinkles it, we need not fear that he will place the water on the oven.
^ᵖnote:Above, when R. Eleazar draws an analogy with a niddah, which the Rabbis reject.
^ᵠnote:Sc. R. Eleazar: he draws an analogy with niddah, where the defilement is contemporary, i.e., simultaneous(v. n. 10. p. 446).
^ʳnote:Therefore if water of lustration was defiled before, it does not cleanse. — Similarly, when blood of an animal sin-offering spurts on to an unclean garment, R. Eleazar will rule that it must be regarded as unclean (hence disqualified for sprinkling) even before it spurted, and therefore the garment need not be washed. The Rabbis, however, who reject this view, will rule that it must be washed. This then is the answer to Rami b. Hama's question, sc. that it is dependent on Tannaim.
^ˢnote:V. supra 80a. Now, the first sprinkling does not contain the minimum standard, and so does not count as sprinkling; nevertheless it is defiled when it falls on the niddah. Hence at the next sprinkling, which is to combine with the first, the first is already unclean. Therefore it is a case of previous defilement, and is completely analogous to sprinkling with defiled water of lustration. The Rabbis, however, maintain that sprinkling does not require a minimum standard, and so the first counts as sprinkling; hence defilement and sprinkling are simultaneous, and no inference can be drawn in respect of previous defilement. — The R. Eleazar here is R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, a disciple of R. Akiba; the R. Eliezer supra 80a, who maintains that sprinkling does not require a minimum standard, is R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.
^ᵗnote:Lev. VI, 20.
^ᵘnote:‘Thereof’ is a limitation.
^ᵛnote:Marginal emendation, R. Jacob.
^ʷnote:In v. 22, after the law of scouring and rinsing in v. 21: Every male among the priests may eat thereof.
^ˣnote:These are two limitations.
^ʸnote:Marginal emendation.
^ᶻnote:How does he explain the second limitation?
^ᵃᵃnote:If terumah is boiled in a pot, it does not need scouring and rinsing.
^ᵃᵇnote:Hence no limitation is required in respect of terumah.
^ᵃᶜnote:The garment on which it fell.
^ᵃᵈnote:I.e., received in a vessel.