Zevachim

Why do I need this too?1 — 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.2 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,3 he has not sanctified it.4 Now it was asked: How is it with blood? Is it a traditional law,5 and we cannot learn from a traditional law,6 or perhaps, what is the reason there? Because it is written,And a clean person shall take [hyssop,] and dip it in the water;7 so here too it is written, And [the priest] shall dip [his finger] in the blood?8 — 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:9 but not sponge up; in the blood:9 there must be sufficient blood for dipping from the beginning; [and sprinkle] of the blood:9 of the blood specified in this passage.10 Now, it is necessary to write both ‘and he shall dip’ and ‘in the blood’.11 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’.12 What does ‘of the blood specified in this passage’ exclude? — Said Raba: It excludes the [blood] remaining on his finger.13 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,14 [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.15 — 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.16 Abaye raised an objection to him: When he finished sprinkling,17 he wipes his hand on the body of the heifer.18 Thus, only if he finished, but not if he had not finished!19 — 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].20 But on what does he wipe his finger?21 — Said Abaye: On the edge of the bowl, as it is written, Wipers [cleansers] of gold.22 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.23 AND WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS,24 AND IS FIT FOR WASHING, WHETHER A GARMENT, A SACK, OR A HIDE, MUST BE WASHED. THE WASHING MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE;25 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.26 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:27 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.28 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]:29 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 Thus the Mishnah means. Only blood which was fit for sprinkling when it was received in a vessel; here, however, it was not fit then. heifer. by inference from Scripture. it implies that the water when sanctified was sufficient for dipping, i.e., sprinkling. sprinklings. be washed. As a corollary, that remaining blood must be fit for sprinkling, for only such necessitates washing. Hence this contradicts R. Eleazar. necessitates washing; if after, it does not, precisely because it is then the residue of the blood. be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water. to use it thus, it is technically a utensil, and subject to defilement. Before it is flayed, however, it cannot be put to use, and cannot become unclean.