POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
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 that he holds that had it become Pasul before touching the garment, it need not be laundered, even though it had Sha'as ha'Kosher!
2. He asks whether we distinguish when the Tum'ah came before touching the garment from when it came at the same time.
(b) Answer (Rav Chisda): According to Abaye (below, 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 a Nidah. The water is Metaher her (from Tum'as Mes), 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 Kli passes over Tum'ah, it is as if it rested on the Tum'ah (this disqualifies Mei Chatas).
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 disagree.
3. Rejection (Abaye - Beraisa): R. Akiva admits that if water was sprinkled and (before reaching the Tamei person) it passed over a Tamei earthenware Kli or a Tamei Mishkav or Moshav (a Kli that people sit or lie on), 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. The last words 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 let the flask rest on the Tum'ah. Chachamim do not decree.
ii. R. Akiva agrees that once water was sprinkled (i.e. left the Ezov in his hand and is in mid-air), there is no concern lest he rest it on the Tum'ah, so we do not decree.
5. Question: What do R. Elazar and Chachamim argue about?
6. Answer #1 (Abaye): They argue about whether we learn the law of a prior Tum'ah (before blood touched the garment) from Tum'ah that came at the same time. R. Elazar learns, and Chachamim do not.
7. (Culmination of answer (b): Likewise, they argue whether blood that became Tamei before touching a garment (it need not be laundered) is the same as blood that became Tamei at the same time it touched.)
(c) Rejection (Rava): No, all agree that we do not learn prior Tum'ah from simultaneous Tum'ah;
1. (Answer #2 to Question b:5 - Rava): They argue about whether there is a Shi'ur for 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. The first drop already became Tamei once it touched her, and even so it joins later (when the second drop touches her) to comprise the Shi'ur.)
2. Chachamim say that there is no Shi'ur for Haza'ah. (They have no source to say that Tamei Mei Chatas is Metaher.)
2) BLOOD OF A "PASUL CHATAS"
(a) (Mishnah): Blood of a Pasul Chatas (need not be laundered...)
(b) (Beraisa): "Mi'Damah" - blood of a Kosher Chatas must be laundered, but not blood of a Pasul Chatas:
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 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 needed for Chatas, but not for Terumah;
6. R. Shimon holds that even Kodshim Kalim do not need Merikah u'Shtifah, and all the more so Terumah does not.
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 and was gathered from the floor, it need not be laundered. (Rashi - there was no Kabalah in a Kli Shares; Rambam - it spilled after Kabalah);
(d) The only blood that 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 Yizeh" - 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 Yizeh" 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 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. (Beraisa - R. Chalifta bar Sha'ul): If Kidush Mei Chatas (putting ashes of the Parah Adumah on water) was done l'Chetz'aim (in two Kelim; neither had the Shi'ur needed for Haza'ah), the water is not Kadosh (even if the water was joined and now it 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'Taval ba'Mayim" (there must be the proper Shi'ur of water to immerse the branches and sprinkle), we should learn similarly from "v'Taval... ba'Dam"!
3. Answer (R. Zerika): Even blood is not Mekudash l'Chetza'im.
4. Support (Rava - Beraisa): "V'Taval" - he immerses (his finger in blood). He does not soak up blood from the wall of the Kli;
5. "Ba'Dam" - there must be enough blood for Tevilah from the beginning.
6. "Min ha'Dam" - from the blood we are discussing (this will be explained).
7. The Torah needed to write both "v'Taval" and "ba'Dam";
i. Had it written only "v'Taval", one might have thought we do not require enough blood for Tevilah (Rashi in Menachos - for all the Haza'os) from the beginning;
ii. Had it said only "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 discussing.
(b) Question: What does this exclude?
(c) Answer (Rava): This excludes blood left on his finger after each 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 the 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: Granted, 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, which 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 proper to become Tamei and proper to be laundered need be laundered.
(f) The law of laundering is the same for Beged (cloth garments), Sak (goat's hair) and leather. It must be laundered in the Azarah.
(g) An earthenware Kli that must be broken (because it absorbed Kodshim) must be broken in the Azarah. Merikah u'Shtifah of copper Kelim (or other metal Kelim 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" teaches only that a (cloth) garment must be laundered;
1. Question: What is the source to include hide after flaying?
2. Answer: We learn from "Asher Yizeh Aleha Techaves."
3. Suggestion: Perhaps this includes hide even before flaying!
4. Rejection: "Beged" teaches that only things that can become Tamei must be laundered.