וכל מיני בגדים תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ו, כ) אשר עליה תכבס יכול שאני מרבה עור משהופשט ת"ל בגד מה בגד דבר המקבל טומאה אף כל דבר המקבל טומאה
and all types of garments made of other materials in the requirement of laundering? The verse states: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled.” One might have thought that I include an animal’s hide after it was flayed. That verse states: “Garment,” to teach that just as a garment is an item that is susceptible to ritual impurity as is, so too any comparable item that is a ready utensil and therefore susceptible to impurity must be laundered. Accordingly, Rabbi Elazar holds that merely flaying a hide is insufficient to render it an item that must be laundered.
מאי בינייהו אמר אביי מטלית פחותה משלש איכא בינייהו מאן דאמר ראוי הא נמי ראוי דאי בעי חשיב עליה מ"ד דבר המקבל טומאה הא מיהא לאו בת קבולי טומאה היא
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar? Is there an item that is fit to become ritually impure, but is not actually susceptible to impurity? Abaye said: A patch of cloth less than three by three fingerbreadths presents a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this patch of cloth is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants, he can intend it for a specific use, as in patching his garment. According to the one who says that only an object already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this patch, in any event, is not yet susceptible to impurity so it does not require laundering.
רבא אמר בגד שחישב עליה לצורה איכא בינייהו מ"ד ראוי הא נמי ראוי דאי בעי מבטיל ליה למחשבתיה מ"ד דבר המקבל טומאה השתא מיהא לאו בת קבולי טומאה היא
Rava said: A garment upon which an individual initially intended to place an image constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. Since the garment was initially intended to have an adornment, the garment is considered incomplete and not yet susceptible to impurity until the image is added. According to the one who says that any garment fit to become ritually impure requires laundering, this garment is also fit to become ritually impure, as if the owner wants to, he can void his intention to add the image, and the garment will be automatically susceptible to impurity. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity requires laundering, now, at least, this garment is not susceptible to impurity and does not require laundering.
רבא אמר עוצבא דחשיב עלה לקצעה איכא בינייהו מ"ד ראוי הא נמי ראויה מאן דאמר דבר המקבל טומאה הא לאו מקבלה טומאה עד דמקצע לה והתניא רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר עוצבא שחשב עליה לקצעה טהורה עד שיקציענה:
According to a different version, Rava said: An unfinished hide [utzeva] that one intended to trim in a precise manner constitutes a practical difference between the two opinions. According to the one who says that any garment-like item fit to become ritually impure must be laundered, this hide must be laundered, since it is also fit to be susceptible to impurity if he voids his intention. According to the one who says that only an item already susceptible to impurity must be laundered, this hide does not require laundering since it is not susceptible to impurity until he trims it. This explanation may be corroborated, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: An unfinished hide that one intended to trim is ritually pure until he trims it.
אין טעון כיבוס כו': מנה"מ דת"ר יכול נתז על מקצת בגד יהא כל הבגד טעון כיבוס ת"ל (ויקרא ו, כ) אשר יזה לא אמרתי לך אלא מקום דם בלבד:
§ The mishna teaches: A garment requires laundering only in the place that the blood was sprayed; but the entire garment does not require laundering. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught: The verse states: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment.” One might have thought that even if the blood sprayed only on part of a garment, the entire garment should require laundering. To counter this, the same verse states: “That on which it shall be sprinkled.” This is to be understood: I told you that laundering is required only in the place that the blood was sprayed.
דבר שהוא ראוי לקבל טומאה [וכו']: סתמא כרבי יהודה
The mishna also teaches: A garment must be laundered only if it is an item that is fit to become ritually impure, and only if it is an item fit for laundering. The Gemara observes: Evidently, the unattributed portion of the mishna is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. This statement is unlike the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that only an item that is presently susceptible to impurity requires laundering.
ראוי לכיבוס למעוטי כלי דבר גרידה הוא:
The mishna also teaches: Only an item fit for laundering must be laundered. The Gemara observes: This qualification serves to exclude a vessel from the requirement of laundering, as it is suitable for scraping blood off of it. Laundering is necessary only for material or fabric into which blood is absorbed.
אחד הבגד ואחד השק כו': למימרא דעור בר כיבוס הוא ורמינהו היתה עליו לשלשת מקנחה בסמרטוט היתה (על). של עור נותן עליה מים עד שתכלה
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the garment mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and the sackcloth, and the hide, all of these must be laundered. Apparently, that is to say that a hide, i.e., leather, is suitable for laundering. And the Gemara raises a contradiction between that assumption and a mishna that discusses laundering on Shabbat (Shabbat 142b): If there were bird droppings [lishleshet] on the cushion, one wipes it with a dry rag, but one may not rinse it with water because of the prohibition against laundering. If it was on a cushion of leather, he applies water to it until the filthy substance dissolves. Evidently, cleaning leather with water is not considered laundering.
אמר אביי לא קשיא הא רבנן הא אחרים דתניא הבגד והשק מכבסו הכלי והעור מגררו אחרים אומרים הבגד והשק והעור מכבסו והכלי מגררו
Abaye said: This contradiction is not difficult. That mishna in tractate Shabbat is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of others. As it is taught in a baraita about the blood of a sin offering: If blood sprays onto a garment or onto sackcloth, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel or onto leather, he scrapes it off. Others say: If it sprays onto a garment, or onto sackcloth, or onto leather, he launders it; but if it sprays onto a vessel, he scrapes it off. According to this baraita, the Rabbis hold that laundering is not applicable to leather, and the opinion attributed to: Others say, holds that it is applicable.
כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב חייא בר אשי זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאניה במיא כמאן כרבנן
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? In accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in this baraita.
אמר רבא ומי איכא למאן דאמר עור לאו בר כיבוס הוא והכתיב (ויקרא יג, נח) והבגד או השתי או הערב או כל כלי העור אשר תכבס אלא אמר רבא קרא ומתניתין ברכין כי פליגי בקשין
§ Rava said: And is there anyone who says that leather is not suitable for laundering? But isn’t it written with regard to leprosy: “And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of leather that you shall wash” (Leviticus 13:58)? Rather, Rava said: The verse that speaks of leprosy and the mishna that speaks of the sin offering are ruling with regard to soft leather, which is considered subject to laundering. In the baraita, when the Rabbis and the others disagree, it is with regard to an item that is made of hard leather; as the Rabbis hold that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
והאמר רב חייא זימנין סגיאין הוה קאימנא קמיה דרב ושכשיכי ליה מסאניה במיא בקשין וכרבנן
The Gemara challenges Rava’s explanation: But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I would stand before Rav on Shabbat and place water on his leather shoes, which he did not consider laundering on Shabbat? Since shoes are normally made of soft leather, according to Rava’s explanation, this should have constituted laundering on Shabbat. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: It was a case of hard leather shoes, and Rav acted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that laundering does not apply to hard leather.
הדר אמר רבא לאו מילתא היא דאמרי ניקו נימא ליה לקרא דכי כתיבן ברכין כתיבן מי לא עסקינן בכלי אכסלגיא הבאים ממדינת הים וקאמר רחמנא ניבעי כיבוס
Rava then said: That which I said, that the verse about leprosy relates to soft leather, is not correct. Shall we stand and say of the verse that when leather articles are written, it is only of soft leather articles that the Torah writes? A verse cannot be constrained in such a manner. Are we not also dealing with articles of hard leather [aksilgiyya] that come from overseas, and yet the Merciful One says in the verse that they require laundering?
אלא אמר רבא צרעת כיון דמגופיה קא פרחה מחלחלא ליה ומשוי לה רך אמר רבא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי
Rather, Rava said: Although the verse also relates to hard leather, this does not mean that all opinions must agree that laundering is always applicable to hard leather. The hard leather in the verse is an exception, because in the case of leprosy, since leprosy sprouts from within the garment itself, it loosens it and renders it soft so that its halakhic status is that of soft leather. Rava said: Nevertheless, if something poses a difficulty for me, according to my opinion that everyone agrees that the halakha with regard to laundering applies to soft leather, this is what poses a difficulty for me: