Study Bava Kamma folio 101B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
רבא רמי, תנן: בגד שצבעו בקליפי ערלה – ידלק; אלמא חזותא מילתא היא. ורמינהי: רביעית דם שנבלעה בבית – הבית טמא. ואמרי לה: הבית טהור. ולא פליגי, הא בכלים דהוו מעיקרא, הא בכלים דאתו לבסוף.
The Talmud states that Rava raises a contradiction: We learned in a Mishnah (Orla 3:1): A garment that one dyed with dye extracted from peels of orla must be burned. Apparently, the change in appearance precipitated by the orla peels is considered a significant matter, and the dye retains its status as orla. And raise a contradiction from another Mishnah (Oholot 3:2): With regard to 1/4th-log of blood from a corpse that was absorbed in the floor of a house, every vessel in the house is ritually impure by virtue of being under the same roof as the blood. And some say that any vessel in the house is ritually pure. And these two statements do not disagree, as this first statement was in reference to vessels that were in the house at the outset, before the blood was absorbed; and this second statement was in reference to vessels that came into the house at the end, after the blood had already been absorbed.
נבלעה בכסות – רואין; אם מתכבסת הכסות ויוצא ממנה רביעית דם – טמאה, ואם לאו – טהורה!
The Mishnah continues: If the blood was absorbed in a garment, it is examined, and if the garment is washed and 1/4th-log of blood emerges from it, it is ritually impure, and the garment imparts ritual impurity to the vessels in the house as well. But if not, i.e., if less than 1/4th-log of blood emerges, then it is pure, and it does not impart impurity. Apparently, only the blood that can be removed from the garment is considered blood, while the blood absorbed in the garment is insignificant. If this is the case, the change in appearance precipitated by the blood is not considered a significant matter, and the blood absorbed in the garment does not remain an independent substance.