Zevachim 93 - BLOOD THAT SPLASHED ONTO A GARMENT THAT WAS
1) BLOOD THAT SPLASHED ONTO A GARMENT THAT WAS "TAMEI"
(a) Question (Rami bar Chama): If blood splashed onto a Tamei garment, what is the law?
1. Inference (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): (Rami asked about when it became Pasul (Tamei) at the same moment it touched the garment -) we infer, he holds that if it became Pasul before touching the garment, it need not be laundered, even though it had Sha'as ha'Kosher!
2. The question is, do we distinguish when the Tum'ah came before touching the garment from when it came at the same time, or not.
(b) Answer (Rav Chisda): According to Abaye (who corrected Rabah), R. Eliezer and Chachamim argue about this:
1. (Beraisa - R. Elazar (ben Shamu'a)): Mei Chatas that became Tamei is Metaher - we learn from Nidah, the water is Metaher her, even though she is Metamei it when it touches her.
2. (Rabah): R. Elazar holds like his Rebbi, R. Akiva, who says that if a vessel is passed over Tum'ah, it is as if it rested on the Tum'ah (this disqualifies the mixture).
i. (Mishnah - R. Akiva): If a man picked up a flask with Mei Chatas and passed it over an oven with a Sheretz inside (the top of the oven is open), the Mei Chatas becomes Tamei;
ii. Chachamim say, it remains Tahor.
iii. R. Akiva holds that something in the air is considered to be resting on the ground below, Chachamim say that it is not.
3. Rejection (Abaye - Beraisa): R. Akiva admits that if water was sprinkled and (before touching the Tamei person) passed over a Tamei earthenware vessel or a Tamei Mishkav or Moshav, it is Tahor;
i. The only Tum'ah that is Metamei above and below (without physical contact) is a k'Zayis of (flesh of) a Mes or *other things that are Metamei b'Ohel*;
ii. This comes to include a stone from a house with Tzara'as.
4. (Abaye): Rather, all agree that something in the air is not considered to be on the ground;
i. R. Akiva decrees that it is Tamei, lest he will let the flask rest on the Tum'ah, Chachamim do not decree.
ii. R. Akiva agrees, once water was sprinkled (i.e. left the Ezov in his hand and is in mid-air) there is no concern that he will rest it on the Tum'ah, we do not decree.
5. Question: What do R. Elazar and Chachamim argue about?
6. Answer #1 (Abaye): They argue whether or not we may learn the law of a prior Tum'ah (before blood touched the garment) from Tum'ah that came at the same time - R. Elazar says that we may learn, Chachamim say that we may not.
7. (Culmination of answer (b): Likewise, they argue whether the law of blood that became Tamei before touching a garment (i.e. it need not be laundered) is the same as when it became Tamei at the same time.)
(c) Rejection (Rava): No, all agree that we do not learn prior Tum'ah from simultaneous Tum'ah;
1. (Answer #2 to Question 5 - Rava): They argue whether or not there is a Shi'ur to Haza'ah - R. Elazar says that there is, therefore we may learn from Nidah (two drops can join to comprise the Shi'ur for Taharah, even though the first drop already became Tamei once it touched her);
2. Chachamim say that there is no Shi'ur for Haza'ah (so we have no source to say that Tamei Mei Chatas is Metaher.)
2) BLOOD OF A "CHATAS PASUL"
(a) (Mishnah): Blood of a Pasul Chatas (need not be laundered...)
(b) (Beraisa): "Mi'Damah" - blood of a Kosher Chatas must be, not blood of a Pasul:
1. R. Akiva (Shitah - R. Yakov) says, if blood had Sha'as ha'Kosher and became Pasul, it must be laundered; if it never had Sha'as ha'Kosher, it need not be laundered.
2. R. Shimon says, in both of these cases it need not be laundered.
3. Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
4. Answer: It says "Osah" and "Mi'Damah" - one excludes when it had no Sha'as ha'Kosher, the other excludes even when it had.
5. R. Akiva uses "Osah" to teach that Merikah u'Shtifah is necessary for Chatas, not for Terumah;
6. R. Shimon holds that even Kodshim Kalim do not need Merikah u'Shtifah, all the more so Terumah.
3) WHICH BLOOD MUST BE LAUNDERED?
(a) (Mishnah): If Dam Chatas splashed from the animal's neck onto a garment, it need not be laundered;
(b) If it splashed from the Keren or the Yesod, it need not be laundered;
(c) If it fell onto the floor (Rashi - without; Rambam - after) having been received in a Kli Shares and was gathered from the floor, it need not be laundered;
(d) The only blood which must be laundered is blood that was received in a Kli and is Kosher for Haza'ah.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps if Dam Chatas splashed from the animal's neck onto a garment, it must be laundered!
1. Rejection: "Asher Yazeh" - only blood Kosher for Haza'ah must be laundered.
(f) (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps if Dam Chatas splashed from the Keren or the Yesod and fell on a garment, it must be laundered!
1. Rejection: "Asher Yazeh" - this excludes blood that already was thrown.
(g) (Mishnah): If it fell onto the floor... (only blood that was received in a Kli must be laundered.)
(h) Question: Why does the Mishnah elaborate to say this?
(i) Answer: The Mishnah gives the reason for the law:
1. The reason we need not launder blood that was gathered from the floor is because only blood that was received in a Kli and is Kosher for Haza'ah must be laundered.
(j) (Mishnah): ..And is Kosher for Haza'ah.
(k) Question: What does this come to exclude?
(l) Answer: It excludes if less than the amount needed for Haza'ah was put into each of two Kelim (even if the blood was later joined, it is Pasul):
1. (R. Chalifta bar Sha'ul): If Kidush Mei Chatas (putting ashes of the Parah Adumah on water) was done l'Chetz'aim (in two vessels, neither had the Shi'ur needed for Haza'ah), the water is not Kadosh (even if the water is joined now and has a Shi'ur,).
2. Question: What is the law regarding blood?
i. If a tradition from Sinai teaches that Kidush Mei Chatas cannot be done l'Chetz'aim, we do not learn to other places;
ii. If we learn from "V'Toval *ba*'Mayim" (there must be the proper Shi'ur of water to immerse the branches and sprinkle), we should learn similarly from "V'Toval...ba'Dam"!
3. Answer (R. Zerika): Even blood is not Mekudash l'Chetza'im.
4. Support (Rava - Beraisa): "V'Toval" - he immerses (his finger in blood), he does not soak up blood from the wall of the vessel;
5. "Ba'Dam" - there must be enough blood for Tevilah from the beginning.
6. "Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are dealing with (this will be explained).
7. The Torah must teach both "V'Toval" and "Ba'Dam":
i. If it only said "V'Toval", one might have thought we do not require enough blood for Tevilah (Rashi in Menachos - for all the Haza'os) from the beginning;
ii. If it only said "Ba'Dam", one might have thought that he may soak up blood.
4) BLOOD LEFT ON THE FINGER
(a) (Beraisa): "Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are dealing with.
(b) Question: What does this exclude?
(c) Answer (Rava): This excludes blood left on his finger after every Haza'ah;
1. This supports R. Elazar, who says that blood left on his finger is Pasul.
(d) Question (Ravin bar Rav Ada - Beraisa): If blood splashed onto a garment from a Kohen's hand before he was Mazeh, it must be laundered (in the Mikdash);
1. If blood splashed from his hand after Haza'ah, it need not be laundered.
2. Suggestion: The Beraisa distinguishes between before and after finishing all the Haza'os - this teaches that until then, blood left on his finger is Kosher for remaining Haza'os!
(e) Answer (Rava): No, it distinguishes between before a Haza'ah, and (blood left on his finger) after Haza'ah.
(f) Question (Abaye - Mishnah): After finishing Haza'ah (of blood of the Parah Adumah), the Kohen would wipe his hand on the Parah itself.
1. Inference: He would not wipe it until completing the Haza'os (but before this, blood left on his finger is Kosher for remaining Haza'os!)
(g) Answer (Rava): No - after completing the Haza'os, he would wipe his *hand*, after each Haza'ah, he would wipe his *finger*
(h) Question: We understand, after completing the Haza'os, he would wipe his hand on the Parah itself - "V'Saraf Es ha'Parah l'Einav" (the end of this verse requires burning all the blood with the Parah);
1. Between Haza'os, what would he wipe his finger on? (He could not wipe it on the Parah, lest hairs stick to his finger, this would disqualify future Haza'os!)
(i) Answer (Abaye): He would wipe his hand on the edge of the bucket (of blood) - the buckets are called "*Kefori* Zahav" (the root of this word also connotes cleaning).
5) WHICH GARMENTS MUST BE LAUNDERED?
(a) (Mishnah): If blood splashed onto a hide before Hefshet (flaying), it need not be laundered;
(b) R. Yehudah says, if it splashed after Hefshet, it must be laundered;
(c) R. Elazar says, it need not be laundered.
(d) Only the part of the garment that absorbed the blood must be laundered;
(e) Only garments fitting to become Tamei and fitting to be laundered need be laundered.
(f) The law of laundering is the same for Beged (a cloth garments), Sak (goat's hair) or leather; it must be laundered in the Azarah.
(g) An earthenware vessel that must be broken (because it absorbed Kodshim) must be broken in the Azarah, Merikah u'Shtifah of copper vessels (or other metal vessels that absorbed Kodshim) must be in the Azarah.
(h) In this respect (Rashi - laundering garments that absorbed Dam Chatas; Rambam - also, breaking Klei Cheres), Chatas is more stringent than other Kodshei Kodoshim.
(i) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(j) Answer (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Beged" only teaches that a (cloth) garment must be laundered;
1. Question: What is the source to include hide after Hefshet?
2. Answer: "Asher Yizeh Aleha Techaves."
3. Suggestion: Perhaps this includes hide even before Hefshet!
4. Rejection: "Beged" - only things fitting Lekabel Tum'ah must be laundered.