Zevachim 188

כרים וכסתות דרכין נינהו ותנן היתה של עור נותן עליה מים עד שתכלה אלא אמר רבא כל כיבוס דלית ליה כיסכוס לא שמיה כיבוס

pillows and bolsters are soft, yet we learnt: 'If it is of leather, water is poured over it until it disappears'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra in connection with the Sabbath.');">¹</span> - 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.

והא דאמר רב חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאניה במיא שכשוך אין אבל כבוס לא אי ברכין וכדברי הכל אי בקשין וכאחרים

[Now, our Mishnah treats] either of soft [skins], and it agrees with all; or of hard ones, and it agree with 'others'. If so, [let water be poured] even [over] a garment too?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why must the dirt be wiped off only with a rag?');">²</span> - In the case of a garment, soaking it [in water] constitutes its washing.

אי הכי בגד נמי בגד שרייתו זהו כיבוסו

Now, Raba is consistent with his view. For Raba said: If one threw a scarf into water, he is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For washing on the Sabbath, to which this refers.');">³</span> if one threw linseed into water, he is culpable.

[רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא זרק סודר למים חייב זרק פשתן למים חייב בשלמא סודר עביד כיבוס] אלא זרע פשתן מ"ט

As for a scarf, it is well, [as] h thereby washes it. But what is the reason In the case of linseed? And should you say, because he causes it to grow;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the water. Thus it is a form of sowing, and for this he is culpable.');">⁴</span>

וכ"ת משום דמקדח אי הכי חיטי ושערי נמי הנך אית להו רירי א"ה שלחים נמי התם קעביד לישה

if so, the same applies to wheat and barley too? -This [linseed] emits mucus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thin threads of mucus ooze from these seeds when they are put into water, which fastens them together.');">⁵</span> If so, the same applies to [undressed] hides?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From these too a mucus issues in water.');">⁶</span> - There he kneads.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁷</span>

דרש רבא מותר לכבס מנעל בשבת א"ל רב פפא לרבא והא"ר חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאני במיא שכשוך אין אבל כיבוס לא הדר אוקי רבא אמורא עליה ודרש דברים שאמרתי לפניכם טעות הם בידי ברם כך אמרו שכשוך מותר כיבוס אסור:

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.

הכיבוס במקום קדוש כו': מנא הני מילי דת"ר (ויקרא ו, כ) תכבס במקום קדוש שבירת כלי חרס מניין ת"ל (ויקרא ו, כא) וכלי חרס אשר תבושל בו ישבר מריקה ושטיפה בכלי נחשת מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ו, כא) ואם בכלי נחשת בושלה ומורק ושוטף במים:

Thus, only dabbing [is permitted], but not washing? Subsequently Raba appointed an interpreter before him and lectured:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis gave their public lectures through interpreters (amora) .');">⁸</span> What I told you was an error; but in truth, dabbing is permitted but washing is forbidden.

זה חומר בחטאת כו': ותו ליכא והאיכא שנכנס דמה (לפני ו) לפנים בחטאות החיצונו'

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20.');">⁹</span> from this we learn that the washing must be in a holy place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">¹⁰</span> How do we know that earthen vessels must be broken?

שאם נכנס דמה (לפני ו) לפנים פסולה כר"ע דאמר כל דמים שנכנסו להיכל לכפר פסולה

Because it says, But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21.');">¹¹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span>

שכן מכפרין על חייבי כריתות בחטאת דשמיעת הקול

IN THIS THE SIN-OFFERING IS MORE STRINGENT, etc. And is there nothing else:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which the sin-offering is more stringent.');">¹³</span> surely there is the fact that its blood enters within?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the inner sanctuary (hekal) , which feature is absent from other most sacred sacrifices.');">¹⁴</span> - This refers to outer sin-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose blood was not taken into the hekal.');">¹⁵</span>

שכן טעונה ארבע מתנות כר' ישמעאל דאמר כל דמים טעונין ד' מתנות על ד' קרנות

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 81b.');">¹⁶</span> 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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. V, 1. 4 seq. - Kareth is not incurred for these even if they are committed deliberately.');">¹⁷</span> Yet there is the fact that they require four sprinklings? - This agrees with R'Ishmael who maintained: All blood requires four sprinklings.

וליטעמיך האיכא קרן (בדם) האיכא אצבע האיכא חודה אלא חד מתרי תלתא חומרי נקט:

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> Rather, [the Tanna] mention one out of two or three stringencies. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A GARMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which needed washing through the blood.');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> בגד שיצא חוץ לקלעים נכנס ומכבסו במקום קדוש נטמא חוץ לקלעים קורעו נכנס ומכבסו במקום קדוש כלי חרס שיצא חוץ לקלעים נכנס ושוברו במקום קדוש נטמא חוץ לקלעים נוקבו ונכנס ושוברו במקום קדוש

WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,outside the Temple court.');">²⁰</span> IT MUST RE-ENTER, AND IT IS WASHED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which condition it cannot re-enter, because nothing unclean may be taken into the Temple court.');">²¹</span>

כלי נחשת שיצא חוץ לקלעים נכנס ומורקו ושוטפו במקום קדוש נטמא חוץ לקלעים פוחתו ונכנס ומורקו ושוטפו במקום קדוש:

ONE MUST TEAR IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It ceases to be a garment, and thereby ceases to be unclean.');">²²</span> 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.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מתקיף לה רבינא קורעו בגד אמר רחמנא ולאו בגד הוא

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,a very large hole made in it. Metal vessels do not lose their uncleanness through a small hole.');">²³</span>

דמשייר ביה כדי מעפורת איני והאמר רב הונא ל"ש אלא שלא שייר בה כדי מעפורת אבל שייר בה כדי מעפורת חבור הוי

THEN IT RE-ENTERS AND IS SCOURED AND RINSED IN A HOLY PLACE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>To this Rabina demurred. [You say,] ONE MUST TEAR IT: Surely the Divine Law speaks of a 'garment', and this is not a garment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture orders the garment to be washed, which implies that it must be a garment when it is washed.');">²⁴</span> - He leaves enough of it [untorn] to be used as an apron.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁵</span> But that is not so, for surely R'Huna said: They learnt this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a garment loses its uncleanness when it is torn.');">²⁶</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And remains unclean.');">²⁷</span>