Zevachim Daf 93 זבחים דַף 93

In a Baraisa, Rebbe Elazar says that מי חטאת which became tamei are still able to be מטהר, שהרי נדה מזין עליה – because we sprinkle מי חטאת onto a niddah who also became tamei from a מת, and although the מי חטאת becomes tamei upon contact with her, they are still מטהר her. The Chochomim disagree. Abaye eventually explains: בדנין טומאה קדומה מטומאה שבאותה שעה קמיפלגי – they argue whether we can derive the law of prior tumah from the law of tumah which occurs at that moment. Rebbe Elazar holds that since מי חטאת are effective for a נדה despite becoming tamei as they touch her, we can derive that even מי חטאת which became tamei before הזאה are effective. The Rabbonon hold we cannot derive the laws of prior tumah from simultaneous tumah. Rava explains the machlokes differently: Rebbe Elazar holds that הזאה requires a minimum shiur, and that shiur can be combined from multiple sprinklings. Thus, if a נדה is sprinkled upon through combined הזאות, the first drops become tamei before the purification is completed (through the second הזאה); since this is effective, it proves that tamei מי חטאת are still effective. The Rabbonon hold הזאה does not require a shiur, and her הזאה was completed with the first sprinkling.

The next Mishnah states: ניתז מן הצואר על הבגד – if [the blood] spattered directly from the animal’s neck onto the garment (without קבלת הדם), it does not require כיבוס. If it spattered from the קרן of the מזבח after being placed there, or from the יסוד (meaning, blood fit for the יסוד because the מתנות were completed), כיבוס is not required. If blood spilled onto the floor from the animal’s neck and he gathered it, such blood would not require כיבוס. The Mishnah concludes that the reason for these rulings is that אין טעון כיבוס אלא דם שנתקבל בכלי וראוי להזאה – laundering is only required for blood which was received in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling. A Baraisa darshens the words "אשר יזה" – if it will be sprinkled to require כיבוס only for blood fit for הזאה. Another Baraisa derives from the future tense of "אשר יזה": פרט לזה שכבר הוזה – to exclude this blood which was already sprinkled.

The Gemara says that the Mishnah’s requirement of "ראוי להזאה" excludes קיבל פחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה ופחות מכדי הזייה בכלי זה – a case where he received less than the amount needed for sprinkling in [one] vessel, and less than the amount needed for sprinkling in [another] vessel, teaching that the blood in these two כלים is invalid, and cannot be combined for הזאה. A Baraisa teaches that if one was מקדש less than the necessary shiur of water for מי חטאת in one כלי, and then again in another כלי, the water is invalid for מי חטאת, even after being combined. They asked if the same applies to blood (of a חטאת הפנימית) where less than the shiur for הזאה was received in each כלי. Is the law of מי חטאת a הלכה (למשה מסיני), and we cannot apply it elsewhere? Or is the reason because "וטבל בַּמים" – and he shall dip it in the water implies that the same water used for dipping is the amount needed for קידוש? If so, the similar phrase regarding korban chatas, וטבל...בַּדם – and he shall dip…in the blood, would require a full shiur for הזאה during קבלה. Rebbe Elazar said the law applies to דם חטאת, and Rava quoted a Baraisa saying the same.