Zevachim 186

הא תו ל"ל מה טעם קאמר מה טעם נשפך על הרצפה ואספו אין טעון כיבוס לפי שאין טעון כיבוס אלא דם שנתקבל בכלי וראוי להזייה:

Why do I need this too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is included in the first ruling.');">¹</span> - 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.

ראוי להזאה: למעוטי מאי למעוטי קיבל פחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה ופחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then they were combined in one vessel, and some blood spurted on a garment; that garment does not need washing. 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.');">²</span>

דתניא רבי חלפתא בר שאול אומר קידש פחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה ופחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה לא קידש

For it was taught: R'Halafta B'Saul said: If he sanctified less than is required for sprinkling in one vessel, and less t is required for sprinkling in another vessel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the water of lustration, which was sanctified for its purpose by being mixed with the ashes of the red heifer.');">³</span> he has not sanctified it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For he must sanctify as much as is required in one vessel.');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו בדם מהו הלכתא היא ומהלכתא לא גמרינן

Now it was asked: How is it with blood? Is it a traditional law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the water of lustration. - A traditional law is one handed down by tradition, and not Learnt directly or by inference from Scripture.');">⁵</span>

או דלמא התם מ"ט דכתיב (במדבר יט, יח) וטבל במים ה"נ כתיב (ויקרא ד, ו) וטבל בדם

and we cannot learn from a traditional law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of other cases.');">⁶</span> or perhaps, what is the reason there?

תא שמע דא"ר זריקא א"ר אלעזר אף בדם לא קידש

Because it is written,And a clean person shall take [hyssop,] and dip it in the water;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 18. The def. art. implies, in the water mentioned above, sc. the water sanctified for lustration; conversely it implies that the water when sanctified was sufficient for dipping, i.e., sprinkling.');">⁷</span> so here too it is written, And [the priest] shall dip [his finger] in the blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 6.');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא תניא וטבל ולא מספג בדם עד שיהא בדם שיעור טבילה מעיקרו מן הדם מן הדם שבענין

- 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">⁹</span>

ואיצטריך למיכתב בדם דאי כתב רחמנא וטבל ה"א אע"פ דליכא שיעור טבילה מעיקרו כתב [רחמנא] בדם

but not sponge up; in the blood:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">⁹</span> there must be sufficient blood for dipping from the beginning; [and sprinkle] of the blood:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">⁹</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא בדם ה"א אפילו מספג כתב רחמנא וטבל

of the blood specified in this passage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is explained anon.');">¹⁰</span> Now, it is necessary to write both 'and he shall dip' and 'in the blood'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">¹¹</span>

מן הדם שבענין למעוטי מאי אמר רבא למעוטי שיריים שבאצבע מסייע לרבי אלעזר דאר"א שיריים שבאצבע פסולין

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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 40b.');">¹²</span>

א"ל רבין בר רב אדא לרב אמר תלמידך אמר רב עמרם תנינא היה מזה וניתזה הזאה מידו עד שלא הזה טעון כיבוס משהזה אין טעון כיבוס

What does 'of the blood specified in this passage' exclude? - Said Raba: It excludes the [blood] remaining on his finger.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must not sprinkle with the blood left on his finger, but must dip his finger into the blood for each of the seven sprinklings.');">¹³</span> This supports R'Eleazar.

מאי לאו ה"ק עד שלא גמר מלהזות טעון כיבוס משגמר להזות אין טעון כיבוס לא ה"ק עד שלא יצתה הזאה מידו טעון כיבוס משיצתה הזאה מידו אין טעון כיבוס

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On to a garment. - This refers to inner sin-offerings.');">¹⁴</span>

איתיביה אביי גמר מלהזות מקנח ידו בגופה של פרה גמר אין לא גמר לא א"ל גמר מקנח ידו בגופה של פרה לא גמר מקנח אצבעו

[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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That implies that if blood which remained on his finger after one of the sprinklings spurted on to a garment, it must be washed. As a corollary, that remaining blood must be fit for sprinkling, for only such necessitates washing. Hence this contradicts R. Eleazar.');">¹⁵</span>

בשלמא גמר מקנח ידו בגופה של פרה שנאמר (במדבר יט, ה) ושרף את הפרה לעיניו אלא אצבעו במאי מקנח אמר אביי בשפת מזרק כדכתיב (עזרא א, י) כפורי זהב:

- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he had dipped his finger into the blood: now, if this blood spurted off his finger before he had sprinkled it, it necessitates washing; if after, it does not, precisely because it is then the residue of the blood.');">¹⁶</span> Abaye raised an objection to him: When he finished sprinkling,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of the red heifer; v. Num. XIX, 4.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ניתז על העור עד שלא הופשט אינו טעון כיבוס משהופשט טעון כיבוס דברי רבי יהודה

he wipes his hand on the body of the heifer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the blood must be burnt together with the body.');">¹⁸</span> Thus, only if he finished, but not if he had not finished!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet if he does not wipe it, he is using this blood for the next sprinkling-there were seven in all.');">¹⁹</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר אף משהופשט אינו טעון כיבוס אלא מקום הדם ודבר שהוא ראוי לקבל טומאה וראוי לכיבוס

- 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 sight, [her skin, and her flesh, and her blood.

אחד הבגד ואחד השק ואחד העור טעונין כיבוס והכיבוס במקום קדוש ושבירת כלי חרס במקום קדוש ומריקה ושטיפה בכלי נחושת במקום קדוש זה חומר בחטאת מקדשי קדשים:

shall be burnt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX, 5.');">²⁰</span> But on what does he wipe his finger?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the sprinklings. He cannot wipe it on the body, as he would soil his finger through hairs sticking to it.');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנהני מילי דת"ר (ויקרא ו, כ) בגד אין לי אלא בגד מנין לרבות עור משהופשט ת"ל (ויקרא ו, כ) אשר יזה עליה תכבס

- Said Abaye: On the edge of the bowl, as it is written, Wipers [cleansers] of gold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezra. 1, 10; cf. supra. 25a.');">²²</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>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.

יכול שאני מרבה עור עד שלא הופשט תלמוד לומר בגד מה בגד הראוי לקבל טומאה אף כל הראוי לקבל טומאה דברי ר' יהודה

R'ELEAZAR SAID: [IT NEED NOT BE WASHED] EVEN [IF IT SPURTED] AFTER IT WAS FLAYED. ONLY THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD NEEDS WASHING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not the whole skin.');">²³</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר בגד אין לי אלא בגד מנין לרבות שק

AND WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. discussion infra.');">²⁴</span> AND IS FIT FOR WASHING, WHETHER A GARMENT, A SACK, OR A HIDE, MUST BE WASHED. THE WASHING MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Temple court.');">²⁵</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VI, 21: But the earthen vessel wherein it (sc. the flesh of a sin-offering) is sodden shall be broken; and If it be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.');">²⁶</span> IN THIS THE SIN-OFFERING IS MORE STRINGENT THAN [OTHER] SACRIFICES OF HIGHER SANCTITY. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>How do we know it? - Because our Rabbis taught: [And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon] a garment:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20.');">²⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a repetition, and intimates extension.');">²⁸</span> 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 contr uncleanness, so everything that is eligible to contract uncleanness [is included]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After a skin is flayed it can be put to use as it is, without further dressing; therefore if its owner expressly intended 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.');">²⁹</span> 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