זבחים 94 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and all kinds of garments? Because it says, ‘thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled’. You might think that I can include a skin after it was flayed? Therefore it says, ‘a garment’: as a garment is an article which contracts uncleanness, so everything which contracts uncleanness [is included]. Wherein do they differ? — Said Abaye: They differ about a cloth less than three [fingerbreadths square]. He who says [that it must be] eligible, this too is eligible, for if [its owner] desires, he can intend it [for use]. But he who maintains, anything which contracts uncleanness, this at all events cannot contract uncleanness. Raba said, They disagree over a garment which [its owner] intended to embroider. He who maintains [that it must be] eligible, this too is eligible, for if [its owner] desires, he can abandon his intention. He however who maintains, anything which can contract uncleanness: now at all events it cannot contract uncleanness. Others state, Raba said: They disagree about an [untrimmed] hide which he intended to trim. He who maintains [that it must be] eligible, this too is eligible; he however who maintains, anything which can contract uncleanness, this however cannot contract uncleanness until he trims it. And it was taught even so: R. Simeon b. Menassia said: A hide which [its owner] intended trimming is clean until he trims it. ONLY THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD NEEDS WASHING. How do we know it? — For our Rabbis taught: You might think that if [the blood] spurted on part of the garment, the whole garment must be washed. Therefore it states, ‘[thou shalt wash] that whereon it was sprinkled’: I ordered thee [to wash] only the place of the blood. WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS. This anonymous teaching agrees with R. Judah. AND FIT FOR WASHING excludes a vessel which requires scraping. WHETHER A GARMENT, SACKCLOTH, OR HIDE. Are we to say that a skin can be washed? But the following contradicts this: If dirt is upon it, one wipes it off with a rag; if it is of leather [skin], water is poured over it until it disappears. — Said Abaye, There is no difficulty: one agrees with the Rabbis; the other agrees with ‘others’. For it was taught: A garment and sackcloth are washed; a vessel and a skin are scraped; others maintain: A garment, sackcloth, and skin are washed; while a vessel is scraped. With whom does the following statement of R. Hiyya b. Ashi agree, [viz.:] I stood many times before Rab, and dabbed his shoes with water? With whom? With the Rabbis. Raba observed: Does anyone maintain that skin is not washable? Surely it is written, And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash! Rather said Raba: The Scriptural text and our Mishnah refer to soft [skins], whereas they disagree about hard [skins]. But surely R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: I stood many times before Rab, and dabbed his shoes with water? — They were of hard [leather], and [he acted] in accordance with the Rabbis. Subsequently Raba said: My statement was incorrect. Are we to say that the text refers [only] to soft [skins]? Does it not refer [even] to foresters’ apparel which comes from overseas, yet the Divine Law states that it must be washed? Rather said Raba: Leprosy, since it breaks out in the article itself, moistens it and softens it. Raba observed: If I have a difficulty, it is this:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Garments made of any materials. A garment usually was of wool.
^ᵇnote:A garment contracts uncleanness whether its owner intends to use it or not; hence the hide, even after it is flayed, is not included, because it does not contract uncleanness, but can only be made to contract uncleanness, by the owner's intention to use it.
^ᶜnote:What garment is merely eligible to become unclean, though at present it cannot become unclean?
^ᵈnote:This is the smallest piece which counts technically as a ‘garment’. A smaller piece ranks as a garment only if the owner intends to use it.
^ᵉnote:Without its owner's intention. Hence if the blood spurted on such a cloth, in R. Judah's opinion it must be washed, but not in R. Eleazar's.
^ᶠnote:I.e., even a larger piece of cloth, but which has not yet been used, because its owner had expressed his intention to embroider it first. This counts as unfinished, and hence not a ‘garment’; nevertheless, if the owner expressly abandons his intention, it becomes a ‘garment’. Thus it is eligible, but cannot contract uncleanness at present.
^ᵍnote:Marginal addition.
^ʰnote:‘Uzba is anything used as a rug or mat or tablecloth; it is generally of hide, but sometimes of cloth. Now, if one intended to use it for such purpose, it immediately ranks as a utensil, even before it is trimmed, and hence can be defiled. But if he intended trimming it, it cannot become unclean until he either trims it or abandons his intention.
^ⁱnote:I.e., it cannot become unclean.
^ʲnote:Though its author is not named, we know from the Baraitha that it is R. Judah's view. — When an individual's view is stated anonymously in the Mishnah, it is generally the halachah.
^ᵏnote:E.g., a wooden vessel, whence it may be impossible to wash out the blood. This does not need washing at all but scraping.
^ˡnote:This treats of the Sabbath, when washing garments is forbidden as a prohibited labour. Dirt on a cushion may be wiped off with a cloth, but not with water, as this constitutes washing. Water, however, may be poured over skin, for that is not regarded as washing. Thus skin is not technically subject to washing.
^ᵐnote:‘Others’ generally refers to it. Meir; Hor: 13b.
^ⁿnote:If the blood of a sin-offering spurts upon them.
^ᵒnote:On the Sabbath.
^ᵖnote:Who hold pouring water over skin (or leather) is not washing.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XIII, 58.
^ʳnote:E.g., leather.
^ˢnote:It is now assumed that they were of soft leather.
^ᵗnote:It was manufactured of hard leather.
^ᵘnote:Scripture does not limit itself but writes, or whatsoever thing of skin it be.
^ᵛnote:To which the passage refers.
^ʷnote:Any leather garment. — Hence the text refers even to hard leather; our Mishnah refers to soft; while the controversy is in respect of hard.

²pillows and bolsters are soft, yet we learnt: ‘If it is of leather, water is poured over it until it disappears’? — Rather said Raba: All washing without rubbing is not called washing. And as to R. Hiyya b. Ashi's statement, I stood many times before Rab and dabbed his shoes with water; dabbing is [permitted], but not rubbing. [Now, our Mishnah treats] either of soft [skins], and it agrees with all; or of hard ones, and it agrees with ‘others’. If so, [let water be poured] even [over] a garment too? — In the case of a garment, soaking it [in water] constitutes its washing. Now, Raba is consistent with his view. For Raba said: If one threw a scarf into water, he is culpable; if one threw linseed into water, he is culpable. As for a scarf, it is well, [as] he thereby washes it. But what is the reason In the case of linseed? And should you say, because he causes it to grow; if so, the same applies to wheat and barley too?-This [linseed] emits mucus. If so, the same applies to [undressed] hides? — There he kneads. Raba lectured: It is permitted to wash a shoe on the Sabbath. Said R. Papa to Raba. But surely R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: I stood many times before Rab, and dabbed his shoes with water for him. Thus, only dabbing [is permitted], but not washing? Subsequently Raba appointed an interpreter before him and lectured: What I told you was an error; but in truth, dabbing is permitted but washing is forbidden. THE WASHING MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE, etc. How do we know it?-Because our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt wash in a holy place: from this we learn that the washing must be in a holy place. How do we know that earthen vessels must be broken? Because it says, But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken. How do we know that brazen vessels must be scoured and rinsed? Because it says, And if it be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. IN THIS THE SIN-OFFERING IS MORE STRINGENT, etc. And is there nothing else: surely there is the fact that its blood enters within? — This refers to outer sin-offerings. But outer sin-offerings too [have a peculiar stringency, viz.] if their blood entered within, they are disqualified? — This is in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: All bloods which enter the hekal to make atonement are disqualified. Yet there is the fact that they make atonement for those who are liable to kareth? — This refers to the sin-offering for the ‘hearing of the voice’ or ‘oath of utterance’. Yet there is the fact that they require four sprinklings? — This agrees with R. Ishmael who maintained: All blood requires four sprinklings. But there is the fact that [the sprinklings must be] on the four horns? — Yet on your reasoning, surely there are the horn, the finger, and the edge? Rather, [the Tanna] mention one out of two or three stringencies. MISHNAH. IF A GARMENT WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT MUST RE-ENTER, AND IT IS WASHED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS ONE MUST TEAR IT, THEN IT RE-ENTERS, AND IS WASHED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF AN EARTHEN VESSEL WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT RE-ENTERS AND IS BROKEN IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS, A HOLE IS MADE IN IT, THEN IT RE-ENTERS AND IS BROKEN IN A HOLY PLACE. IF A BRAZEN VESSEL WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT RE-ENTERS AND IS SCOURED AND RINSED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT MUST BE BROKEN THROUGH, THEN IT RE-ENTERS AND IS SCOURED AND RINSED IN A HOLY PLACE. GEMARA. To this Rabina demurred. [You say,] ONE MUST TEAR IT: Surely the Divine Law speaks of a ‘garment’, and this is not a garment? — He leaves enough of it [untorn] to be used as an apron. But that is not so, for surely R. Huna said: They learnt this only if one did not leave enough to be used as an apron [untorn], but if one left enough to be used as an apron, it is [technically] joined?27^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ

^ˣnote:Supra in connection with the Sabbath.
^ʸnote:Why must the dirt be wiped off only with a rag?
^ᶻnote:For washing on the Sabbath, to which this refers.
^ᵃᵃnote:In the water. Thus it is a form of sowing, and for this he is culpable.
^ᵃᵇnote:Thin threads of mucus ooze from these seeds when they are put into water, which fastens them together.
^ᵃᶜnote:From these too a mucus issues in water.
^ᵃᵈnote:When the mucus causes the linseed to stick together, it is a kind of kneading, for which he is culpable. But kneading is inapplicable to hides.
^ᵃᵉnote:The Rabbis gave their public lectures through interpreters (amora).
^ᵃᶠnote:Lev. VI, 20.
^ᵃᵍnote:Emended text (Sh.M.).
^ᵃʰnote:Ibid. 21.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid.-In each case the question is: how do we know that these things must be done in a holy place? The answer is, by reading ‘in a holy place’ with what follows, as well as with what precedes, thus: and in a holy place shall the earthen vessel... be broken (and) a brazen vessel... be scoured and rinsed; v. Sifra a.l.
^ᵃʲnote:In which the sin-offering is more stringent.
^ᵃᵏnote:In the inner sanctuary (hekal), which feature is absent from other most sacred sacrifices.
^ᵃˡnote:Whose blood was not taken into the hekal.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. supra 81b.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Lev. V, 1. 4 seq. — Kareth is not incurred for these even if they are committed deliberately.
^ᵃᵒnote:The blood of the sin-offering must be applied with the finger, on the horn, and on the edge of the horn. In all these too it is more stringent than other most sacred sacrifices.
^ᵃᵖnote:Which needed washing through the blood.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e.,outside the Temple court.
^ᵃʳnote:In which condition it cannot re-enter, because nothing unclean may be taken into the Temple court.
^ᵃˢnote:It ceases to be a garment, and thereby ceases to be unclean.
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e.,a very large hole made in it. Metal vessels do not lose their uncleanness through a small hole.
^ᵃᵘnote:Scripture orders the garment to be washed, which implies that it must be a garment when it is washed.
^ᵃᵛnote:He does not tear it right across, but leaves the width of an apron (or duster) untorn. Since the greater part of it is torn it ceases to be unclean; nevertheless, since so much is left untorn, it is still technically a garment.
^ᵃʷnote:That a garment loses its uncleanness when it is torn.
^ᵃˣnote:And remains unclean.