Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 93

1) BLOOD THAT SPILLS ON A GARMENT THAT IS "TAMEI"

QUESTION: Rami bar Chama asks what the Halachah is in a case in which the blood of a Chatas spills on a garment that is Tamei. Does the Torah require the garment to be cleaned? From his question, we see that Rami bar Chama maintains that the only reason why the garment might require cleaning is because the blood becomes Tamei at the same moment that it reaches the garment. If the blood would have been Pasul for any reason before it reached the garment, then it would not require cleaning (unlike Rebbi Akiva's opinion on 92b).

The CHELKAS YOAV (in Kava d'Kushyasa #65) writes that he does not understand the Gemara's question. The Gemara later (98b) quotes Rava who asks about a case in which the blood of an Olah (which does not requires cleaning) falls onto a garment, and then the blood of a Chatas falls onto the same place where the Olah-blood fell. Does the garment need to be cleaned because the Chatas-blood *touched* it, or does the garment *not* need to be cleaned because the Chatas-blood did not become *absorbed* in it (because the garment is already saturated with the blood of the Chatas)? Rava answers that the garment does not need to be cleaned. Rava clearly maintains that cleaning is necessary only when the blood of a Chatas becomes *absorbed* into a garment.

The Chelkas Yoav says that according to Rava's view, Rami bar Chama's question is based on an incorrect premise. Rami bar Chama asks that because the blood becomes Pasul at the same moment that it touches Tamei garment, perhaps the garment does not need to be cleaned. This implies that if the garment was not Tamei, then the blood would require it to be cleaned at the moment that it *touches* the garment (and not when it becomes absorbed into the garment). According to Rava, blood that falls on a Tamei garment never requires the garment to be cleaned, because the blood becomes Tamei at the moment that it touches the garment, long before it becomes absorbed into the garment. Accordingly, there should be no difference between the case of blood that falls on a Tamei garment, and blood that was Pasul before it fell on a Tahor garment. Why does the Gemara not address this logic at all?

ANSWERS:

(a) The CHOK NASAN answers in the name of the MIRKEVES HA'MISHNEH that there is obviously an argument between Rami bar Chama and Rava regarding what necessitates cleaning a garment onto which blood of a Chatas spilled. Rami bar Chama maintains that as soon as the blood *touches* the garment, the obligation to clean the garment takes effect, while Rava maintains that it does not take effect until the blood becomes *absorbed* into the garment.

With this answer, we can understand the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 8:9) as well. The Rambam rules, unlike the conclusion of our Gemara, that the garment does *not* require cleaning. The KESEF MISHNEH is perplexed why the Rambam rules contrary to the conclusion of the Gemara. The MAHARI KURKAS concludes that either there is a mistake in our text of the Rambam, or the Rambam himself had a different (and mistaken) text of the Gemara. However, based on the Mirkeves ha'Mishneh's assertion that Rami bar Chama and Rava are arguing about what obligates the garment to be cleaned, we can suggest that the Rambam is ruling like Rava's opinion later (98b) that only blood which is absorbed into a garment requires cleaning, as opposed to the opinion of Rami bar Chama. (See also the Chok Nasan's difficulties with the answer given by the CHAZON NACHUM.) This answer is also given by the MITZPEH EISAN.

The CHAZON ISH (Zevachim 20:4) has great difficulty with this explanation. Our Gemara never mentions any challenge to the logic of Rami bar Chama's question, neither in the beginning nor in the end of the Gemara's discussion. Why would the Gemara pursue an entire discussion without bringing up a relevant objection to this logic?

(b) The CHAZON ISH answers that Rava's position later is not relevant to the discussion of the Gemara here. Rava maintains that at the moment that blood reaches a clean garment, it is considered absorbed into the garment as well. This is because whenever blood falls on a garment, it will always make the garment dirty, which is already called "being absorbed." Rava's case in the Gemara later deals with the blood of an Olah which acts as a barrier, preventing the garment from absorbing any of the blood of the Chatas in even the slightest manner. When one washes off such a stain, he is washing off the blood of the Olah from the garment, and the blood of the Chatas would not even be considered as having been washed from the garment. This is why Rava concludes that there is no Mitzvah to wash such a garment. (See also YAD BINYAMIN who gives this explanation.) Accordingly, Rava would agree with Rami bar Chama.

However, this answer leaves us with a question on the Rambam. Why does the Rambam rule contrary to the conclusion of our Gemara, if there is no other opinion that disputes Rami bar Chama?

Based on the Chazon Ish's approach, the KEHILOS YAKOV (Pesachim #11, Zevachim #38) answers a different question on this ruling of the Rambam. The AMUDEI OR (#70) asks that the Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 1:6) rules that blood of Kodshim cannot become Tamei *at all.* This seems to contradict the Rambam that we are discussing (in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos), who says that the blood of a Chatas that falls onto a Tamei garment does not require cleaning. The reason for this, as our Gemara explains, is because Tamei blood does not cause a garment to need cleaning! If the Rambam rules that blood of Kodshim never becomes Tamei, then the blood surely should make the garment require cleaning!

The Kehilos Yakov explains that the Rambam understands that the blood which falls on the Tamei garment is not considered to be Tamei as a result of touching a Tamei garment. Rather, the Rambam follows the explanation of Rava, who says that only when blood is considered absorbed in a garment is it considered Tamei as a result of the Tamei garment. This is because of the rule that something which is attached to a Tamei item is considered Tamei like it, as long as it is attached (see Kelim 18:7-8, 19:5), as the Rambam himself writes (Hilchos Tum'as Ochlin 2:20). Using a logic similar to that of the Chazon Ish that blood resting on a clean garment is always considered absorbed as well, we can understand that the blood acquires the status of the garment, giving the blood the status of Tamei blood. This is why the Rambam rules that the blood does not make the Tamei garment require cleaning. (Y. Montrose)

93b

QUESTION: The Gemara says that one may not perform the sprinkling of the blood of a Parah Adumah with the leftover blood (from the preceding Haza'ah) from one's fingers. Rather, one must obtain blood new blood from the container for each Haza'ah. Abaye quotes a Beraisa which (according to the Gemara's conclusion) says that when the Kohen completes all of the Haza'os, he must wipe the blood left on his hand onto the body of the Parah. RASHI (DH Mekane'ach) explains that this is because all of the blood of the Parah Adumah must be burned, and thus it is wiped on the body of the Parah which will be burned. However, this is not the way that the Kohen is to wipe the leftover blood from his finger between each Haza'ah. RASHI (DH ba'Meh) explains that if he would wipe his finger on the Parah between the Haza'os, then hairs from the Parah would get stuck to his fingers (causing a separation between his finger and the blood that needs to be sprinkled). Abaye says, therefore, that the Kohen must wipe his finger on the edge of the Mizrak, the container holding the blood.

This Gemara poses a difficult question on the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Parah Adumah 3:2). The Rambam relates that the leftover blood on one's finger cannot be used for the next Haza'ah, "and, therefore, after every Haza'ah he wipes his finger *on the body of the Parah*." Why does the Rambam ignore the Gemara which clearly rejects this practice and says that the finger must be wiped on the edge of the Mizrak?

ANSWERS:

(a) The KESEF MISHNEH explains that we can understand the words of the Rambam based on his ruling elsewhere. The Rambam (ibid. 4:4) rules like the Sifri that says that the Mitzvah is to receive the blood of the Parah Adumah using one's hand, and there is no Mitzvah to use a Kli (see also SHITAH MEKUBETZES in Menachos 7b, #15, who presents various texts in the Gemara there which support the Rambam's opinion). Indeed, the Rambam rules that if the blood is receive in a Kli, the Parah Adumah becomes Pasul. The Sifri clearly argues with our Gemara, which maintains that the blood of the Parah Adumah is received in a Mizrak. Since the Rambam maintains that a Mizrak is not used, the Rambam rules that one should wipe one's finger on the Parah itself (since there is nothing else to wipe it on). (See also LECHEM MISHNEH in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:8.)

However, the MA'ASEH ROKE'ACH (Hilchos Parah Adumah 3:2) quotes the ETZ CHAYIM who asks a basic question that refutes the Kesef Mishneh's answer. Even if one must receive the blood in his hand and not in a Mizrak, why can the Kohen not simply bring a Mizrak to solve the problem of where he should wipe his finger?

(b) The MA'ASEH ROKE'ACH explains that there is another Sifri which states in the name of Rav Nachman that one should wipe his hands on the body of the Parah. Even though the Sifri mentions the wiping of the "hands," which our Gemara agrees is done after all of the Haza'os have been performed, the Sifri there is referring to all of the blood, even the blood which is leftover on the finger between each Haza'ah. He says that this is also how HA'RAV GEDALYAH understands this Sifri. The Rambam here apparently follows the explanation of the Sifri (as we mentioned above in the name of the Kesef Mishneh), which seems to be saying that not only the hand, but the finger as well, should be wiped on the Parah after each Haza'ah.

How, though, does the Rambam understand our Gemara, which says that the finger should be wiped on the Mizrak? Apparently, the Rambam understands that the Gemara is giving only one possible answer of how to clean off the blood, but there are other ways, such as by wiping it on the Parah itself.

(c) The RA'AVAD agrees with the Rambam that one *may* use his hand to receive the blood of the Parah Adumah. However, he argues that there is no source to say that the Parah Adumah is Pasul if one uses a Kli to receive the blood. He quotes our Gemara as proof that this cannot disqualify the Parah Adumah. Since the Gemara says that the finger is wiped on the Mizrak, it must be that the Mizrak was there because it was used to receive the blood.

The Ra'avad continues and says that not only is it permitted to use the Mizrak to receive the blood, but the Mizrak serves another important function. As we mentioned above, all of the blood of the Parah was supposed to be burned. This would be very difficult if the blood was received by hand, as some of the blood inevitably would spill on the floor. The Mizrak was not necessarily used to collect the blood for the Zerikah, but rather to collect all of the blood to be burned later with the Parah Adumah. (Y. Montrose)