## Zevachim Daf 93b

###### Zevachim 93b:1
[Zevachim 93b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:1)

הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס – לְפִי שֶׁאֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא דָּם שֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי וְרָאוּי לְהַזָּיָיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the statement that only blood that was collected in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires the laundering of the garment on which it sprayed, the Gemara asks: **Why do I also** need **this?** After all, it was already taught that if blood spilled from the neck onto the floor before it was collected in a vessel, and it sprayed on a garment, the garment does not require laundering. The Gemara answers: This is not an additional *halakha*, but rather the mishna **is saying: What is the reason? What is the reason** that if the blood **spilled** from the neck **onto the floor** before it was collected in a vessel, **and** the priest **collected it** and it sprayed on a garment, the garment **does not require laundering?** This is **because** it is **only** with regard to **blood that was received in** a sacred **vessel and is fit for sprinkling** that the garment **requires laundering.**


###### Zevachim 93b:2
[Zevachim 93b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:2)

רָאוּי לְהַזָּאָה – לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לְמַעוֹטֵי קִיבֵּל פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה וּפָחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: It is only with regard to blood that was received in a sacred vessel and is **fit for sprinkling** that the garment **requires laundering.** The Gemara asks: As it was already taught that when disqualified blood is sprayed on a garment, it does not require laundering, this reiteration serves **to exclude what?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to exclude** the case where a priest **received less** blood **than** is **sufficient for sprinkling in this vessel, and less than** is **sufficient for sprinkling in that vessel,** and then he mixed together the blood from the two vessels. In such a case, even though the combined amount is now enough for sprinkling, the blood did not become fit for sprinkling.


###### Zevachim 93b:3
[Zevachim 93b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:3)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא בַּר שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: קִידֵּשׁ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה וּפָחוֹת מִכְּדֵי הַזָּיָיה בִּכְלִי זֶה – לֹא קִידֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the sanctification of water of purification, **Rabbi Ḥalafta bar Shaul says:** If a priest **sanctified less than** is **sufficient for sprinkling in this vessel and less than** is **sufficient for sprinkling in that vessel,** and he then mixed together the water from the two vessels, he **has not sanctified** it to become water of purification.


###### Zevachim 93b:4
[Zevachim 93b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:4)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּדָם מַהוּ? הִלְכְתָא הִיא, וּמֵהִלְכְתָא לָא גָּמְרִינַן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a related issue, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If a priest did this **for** the **blood** of an internal sin offering, collecting less than is sufficient for sprinkling in each vessel and then mixing all the blood together, **what is** the *halakha*? **Is** Rabbi Ḥalafta’s statement about the water of purification **a *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **and we do not learn from** such **a *halakha*** an application to a different matter?


###### Zevachim 93b:5
[Zevachim 93b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:5)

אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָתָם מַאי טַעְמָא – דִּכְתִיב ״וְטָבַל בַּמַּיִם״, הָכָא נָמֵי כְּתִיב ״וְטָבַל בַּדָּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or, perhaps: What is the reason there,** that the combined water of purification is not fit for sprinkling? It may be **because it is written** about sprinkling the water: **“And dip it in the water”** (Numbers 19:18), stressing that it is to be dipped in precisely the same water that was first placed in the vessel. This indicates that from the outset there must be an amount sufficient for sprinkling. If so, then **here also** there is comparable language employed with regard to the blood of a sin offering. **It is written: “And** the priest shall **dip** his finger **in the blood,** and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6). Does this prove that from the outset there must be sufficient blood for sprinkling?


###### Zevachim 93b:6
[Zevachim 93b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זְרִיקָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אַף בְּדָם – לֹא קִידֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof, **as Rabbi Zerika says** that **Rabbi Elazar says: Even in** the case of the **blood** of a sin offering, if one collected two insufficient amounts and then mixed them together, he **did not sanctify** the blood to make it fit for sprinkling on the altar, and therefore, if it sprays on a garment, one is not required to launder the garment.


###### Zevachim 93b:7
[Zevachim 93b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:7)

אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא: ״וְטָבַל״ – וְלֹא מְסַפֵּג. ״בַּדָּם״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדָּם שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. ״מִן הַדָּם״ – מִן הַדָּם שֶׁבָּעִנְיָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says: It is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the internal sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary: The verse states: **“And** the priest **shall dip** his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6); **and** there must be enough blood in the vessel for the priest to dip his finger in it so that he does **not** need to **wipe** blood from the sides or the bottom of the vessel onto his finger. The verse states: **“In the blood,”** teaching that the blood is unfit for sprinkling **unless there is a measure of the blood** fit for **dipping** in the vessel **from the outset,** and the blood is disqualified if more blood is added to a vessel that initially contained less than the required measure. The verse states: “Sprinkle **of the blood,”** which teaches that he must sprinkle **of the blood that is** mentioned **in** this **matter,** which is the blood in the vessel.


###### Zevachim 93b:8
[Zevachim 93b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:8)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִיכְתַּב ״בַּדָּם״; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָבַל״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אַף עַל פִּי דְּלֵיכָּא שִׁיעוּר טְבִילָה מֵעִיקָּרוֹ; כְּתַב [רַחֲמָנָא] ״בַּדָּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it was necessary** for the Torah **to write** the term: **“In the blood,”** as well as the term: “And the priest shall dip.” **As, had the Merciful One written** only: **“And** the priest **shall dip,” I would say** that if there is sufficient blood at the time of dipping, **even though there was not a measure** of blood fit for **dipping** in the vessel **from the beginning,** it is nevertheless fit for dipping. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “In the blood,”** to teach that there must be sufficient blood from the beginning.


###### Zevachim 93b:9
[Zevachim 93b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:9)

וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״בַּדָּם״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מְסַפֵּג; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְטָבַל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if the Merciful One had written** only: **“In the blood,” I would say** that if at the beginning there was an appropriate measure of blood, it is not necessary for the vessel to retain a measure of enough blood throughout the whole rite, and **even** if he eventually **wipes** blood off of the vessel onto his finger, it is sufficient for sprinkling. Therefore, **the Merciful One writes: “And** the priest **shall dip,”** to teach that there must remain enough blood to dip his finger each time.


###### Zevachim 93b:10
[Zevachim 93b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:10)

מִן הַדָּם שֶׁבְּעִנְיָן – לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: לְמַעוֹטֵי שִׁירַיִים שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע. מְסַיַּיע לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שִׁירַיִים שֶׁבָּאֶצְבַּע – פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The cited *baraita* states: The verse states: “Sprinkle of the blood,” which teaches that he must sprinkle **of the blood that is** mentioned **in** this **matter,** which is the blood in the vessel. The Gemara asks: In order **to exclude what** was this mentioned? **Rava said:** This serves **to exclude the remainder** of the blood **that is on the** priest’s **finger** after sprinkling, which may not be used for further sprinkling, as he must dip his finger in the blood again for each sprinkle. Rava continues: This **supports** the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: The remainder** of the blood **that is on the** priest’s **finger** after sprinkling is **unfit** for further sprinkling.


###### Zevachim 93b:11
[Zevachim 93b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא לְרַב: אָמַר תַּלְמִידְךָ, אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם, תְּנֵינָא: הָיָה מַזֶּה וְנִיתְּזָה הַזָּאָה מִיָּדוֹ – עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִזָּה, טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִשֶּׁהִזָּה, אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravin bar Rav Adda said to Rav,** i.e., Rava: **Your student says** that **Rav Amram says: We** already **learn** a *baraita* opposing Rabbi Elazar’s opinion: If a priest **was sprinkling** the blood of an internal sin offering, **and a sprinkle sprayed from his hand** onto a garment, the *halakha* depends on the circumstances. If it sprayed **before he sprinkled,** the garment **requires laundering,** but if it sprayed **once he has sprinkled,** it **does not require laundering.**


###### Zevachim 93b:12
[Zevachim 93b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:12)

מַאי, לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁלֹּא גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִשֶּׁגָּמַר לְהַזּוֹת – אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? לָא; הָכִי קָאָמַר: עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצְתָה הַזָּאָה מִיָּדוֹ – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִשֶּׁיָּצְתָה הַזָּאָה מִיָּדוֹ – אֵין טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravin bar Rav Adda explains: **What, is it not this** that the *baraita* **is saying:** If the blood sprayed on a garment **before** the priest **concluded sprinkling,** the garment **requires laundering,** even if it sprayed from the remainder on his finger; but if it sprayed **once** the priest **has concluded sprinkling, it does not require laundering?** This indicates that blood sprayed from the remainder on his finger requires laundering, so it must be fit for sprinkling. Rava replied: **No, this** is what the *baraita* **is saying:** If the blood sprayed on a garment **before** the **sprinkling has left his hand, it requires laundering,** but if it sprayed **once** the **sprinkling has left his hand,** the remainder on his finger **does not require laundering** if it then sprays onto a garment.


###### Zevachim 93b:13
[Zevachim 93b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: גָּמַר מִלְּהַזּוֹת – מְקַנֵּחַ יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה. גָּמַר אִין, לֹא גָּמַר לָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גָּמַר – מְקַנֵּחַ יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה, לֹא גָּמַר – מְקַנֵּחַ אֶצְבָּעוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rabbi Elazar’s opinion from what is taught about sprinkling the blood of the red heifer in a mishna (*Para* 3:9): When the priest has **concluded sprinkling** the blood, **he wipes his hand on the body of** the red **heifer.** Evidently, if he **concluded** sprinkling, **yes,** he does wipe his hand; but if he **did not conclude** sprinkling, he does **not** wipe his hand, even though a remainder is left on his finger. Evidently, this remainder is fit for sprinkling. Rava **said to him:** The mishna is to be understood otherwise: If he **concluded** sprinkling, **he wipes his** entire **hand on the body of the** red **heifer;** but if he **has not concluded** sprinkling, **he wipes** only **his finger** after each sprinkling.


###### Zevachim 93b:14
[Zevachim 93b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:14)

בִּשְׁלָמָא גָּמַר – מְקַנֵּחַ יָדוֹ בְּגוּפָהּ שֶׁל פָּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂרַף אֶת הַפָּרָה לְעֵינָיו״. אֶלָּא אֶצְבָּעוֹ – בְּמַאי מְקַנֵּחַ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׂפַת מִזְרָק, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״כְּפוֹרֵי זָהָב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** if he **concluded** sprinkling, **he wipes his hand on the body of** the red **heifer, as it is stated: “And the heifer shall be burned in his sight;** its skin, and its flesh, and its blood” (Numbers 19:5), indicating that the remaining blood must be incinerated together with the flesh. **But on what does he wipe his finger** after each sprinkling, since he must not wipe it on the body of the heifer, which might cause hair to stick to his finger, interfering with the sprinkling? **Abaye said:** He wipes his finger **on the lip of** the **bowl** holding the blood for sprinkling, **as it is written: “Atoning bowls [*keforei*] of gold”** (Ezra 1:10). The atoning bowls are so named because the priest wipes his finger on them, and the word *keforei* indicates cleansing by way of wiping (see *Ḥullin* 8b).


###### Zevachim 93b:15
[Zevachim 93b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:15)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִיתַּז עַל הָעוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּפְשַׁט – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Apropos laundering the blood of a sin offering from garments onto which it sprayed, the mishna discusses what is considered a garment. If the blood of a sin offering **sprayed onto the hide** of an animal **before it was flayed** from the animal, the hide **does not require laundering,** because its status is not that of a garment, which is susceptible to ritual impurity. If the blood sprayed onto the hide **after it was flayed, it requires laundering;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Zevachim 93b:16
[Zevachim 93b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:16)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט; אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא מְקוֹם הַדָּם, וְדָבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, וְרָאוּי לְכִיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says: Even** if the blood sprayed onto the hide **after it was flayed, it does not require laundering** until it is crafted into a vessel or garment that is actually susceptible to ritual impurity. This is the principle with regard to laundering: A garment must be laundered **only** in the **place** where **the blood** was sprayed, **and** only if it is **an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and** only if it is an item **fit for laundering.**


###### Zevachim 93b:17
[Zevachim 93b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:17)

אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק וְאֶחָד הָעוֹר – טְעוּנִין כִּיבּוּס; וְהַכִּיבּוּס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וּשְׁבִירַת כְּלִי חֶרֶס בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ, וּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בִּכְלִי נְחוֹשֶׁת בִּמְקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ. זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּחַטָּאת מִקׇּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to **the garment** mentioned explicitly in the Torah, **and the sackcloth, and the hide, all** of these **require laundering. And the laundering** must be performed **in a sacred place,** the Temple courtyard, **and the breaking of an earthenware vessel** in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed **in a sacred place, and scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel** in which a sin offering was cooked must be performed **in a sacred place.** With regard to **this** matter, **a stringency** applies **to a sin offering** more **than** it applies to **offerings of the most sacred order.**


###### Zevachim 93b:18
[Zevachim 93b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת עוֹר מִשֶּׁהוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה עָלֶיהָ תְּכַבֵּס״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to blood sprayed on a flayed hide, **from where are these matters,** i.e., the divergent opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar, derived? The Gemara explains: They are derived **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: It is stated with regard to laundering: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on **a garment”** (Leviticus 6:20). **I have** derived **only a garment; from where** do I **include** an animal’s **hide after it was flayed? The** same **verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled,”** to include any item on which the blood sprayed.


###### Zevachim 93b:19
[Zevachim 93b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:19)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּפְשַׁט? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בֶּגֶד״ – מָה בֶּגֶד הָרָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה, אַף כֹּל הָרָאוּי לְקַבֵּל טוּמְאָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought **that I** would **include a hide** even **before it was flayed.** To counter this, **the verse states: “Garment.”** Consequently, **just as** any manner of **garment** is an item **fit to become ritually impure** if one intends to use it, e.g., making it a patch for his clothing, **so too** the requirement of laundering applies to **any** item **that** becomes **fit to become ritually impure** when one intends to use it as is. A hide is fit to become ritually impure after it has been flayed, when one intends to use it for a rug or the like; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Zevachim 93b:20
[Zevachim 93b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/93b:20)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: ״בֶּגֶד״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בֶּגֶד, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שַׂק

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar** holds that, even after it is flayed, the hide does not require laundering. In interpreting the verse, he **says:** The verse states: **“Garment,”** and from this **I have** derived **only a garment; from where** do I **include sackcloth**