Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 185:12

חטאת פסולה כו': ת"ר מדמה מדם כשירה ולא מדם פסולה ר"ע אומר היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה דמה טעון כיבוס לא היתה לה שעת הכושר ונפסלה אין דמה טעון כיבוס

and the other master holds that we do not draw an analogy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 185:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.