Menachot 27b — the Talmud in English

For if he omitted one of the applications, he has accomplished nothing

(And from here we learned that it is indispensable for the bull of the unwitting communal sin. In the continuation of this beraita there are also expositions teaching indispensability for the bull of the anointed priest and the goats of idolatry; see Rashi here and the Gemara, Zevachim 39a.)

The Sages taught: The seven sprinklings that are in the red

red heifer,

which he performed either not for their sake or not directed

not opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, they are

invalid.

Not for their sake is invalid, because it is written, “It is a sin-offering”; the Torah called it a “sin-offering,” and regarding a sin-offering the law is that if he performed it not for its sake, it is invalid. And not directed is invalid, because it is written, “toward the front of the Tent of Meeting,” which implies that he must direct it; and regarding the red heifer it is written “a statute,” and therefore the law that it must be directed is indispensable.

And the

sprinklings

that are inside,

such as those of Yom Kippur, and the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull for an unwitting matter, and the goats of idolatry,

and those of the leper

at the Nicanor Gate, for which one must perform seven sprinklings opposite the Holy of Holies for the sake of the leper, if he performed them

not for their sake—

they are invalid.

But if he performed them

not directed

opposite the Holy of Holies,

they are valid.

And we challenge this:

But was it not taught concerning the red heifer

that if he performed the sprinklings

not for their sake—

they are invalid,

but

not directed—

they are valid?

Whereas in the beraita above it is written that they are invalid!?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said: It is not difficult: This

where it is written “valid” is according to

Rabbi Judah,

for in his view “toward the front” is not precise;

that

where it is written “invalid” is according to

the Rabbis,

who hold that “toward the front” is precise.

For it was taught: Those lacking atonement,

impure persons [such as a man with a flux or a leper who must bring an offering on the eighth day] who immersed during the day and night arrived, but who still must bring offerings,

who entered the Temple courtyard—

unwittingly, he is liable to a sin-offering; intentionally, he is punished by excision,

as is the law of an impure person who entered the Temple,

and it is unnecessary to say one who immersed that day,

that is, an impure person who immersed but night has not yet arrived,

and all other impure persons

who did not immerse at all, that they are liable.

And pure persons who entered beyond their permitted partition,

if they entered

the entire Sanctuary,

their punishment is

forty

lashes, because they transgressed the prohibition, “And he shall not enter at all times into the Sanctuary” , but if they entered

from within the curtain

the innermost area, where the Ark was, but did not go as far as before the Ark, or

to the front of the cover

where they went as far as before the Ark, their punishment is

death. Rabbi Judah says: All

the

entire Sanctuary and from within the curtain—

with forty, and “to the front of the curtain” with death.

And he explains:

In what do they disagree,

Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis?

In this verse: “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, from within the curtain, to the front of the cover that is upon the Ark, and he shall not die.”

The Rabbis hold: “Into the Sanctuary”

means the Sanctuary—

with “he shall not come”

and he receives lashes;

“from within the curtain” and “to the front of the cover”—

with “he shall not die.”

And Rabbi Judah holds: “Into the Sanctuary and from within the curtain”—

with “he shall not come”

and he receives lashes,

, and “to the front of the cover”—

“with ‘he shall not die.’”

And we challenge this:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

who expound “from within the curtain” together with “from within the cover,” and make him liable for this to death, rather than expounding as Rabbi Judah?

And we answer:

If it would enter your mind as Rabbi Judah says,

that for “from within the curtain” he receives lashes only and is not liable to death,

the Merciful One should write “into the Sanctuary and to the front of

the cover”

alone

and would not need

and would not need to write

“from within the curtain,” and I would say:

And I would say: one who enters the

Sanctuary is liable

for lashes;

, from within the curtain, is it necessary

to teach that he is liable for lashes?! For the Sanctuary is included within “from within the curtain,” since it is impossible to enter “from within the curtain” except through the Sanctuary, and from the moment he entered the Sanctuary he was already liable for lashes. Therefore,

“from within the curtain,” which the Merciful One wrote—why do I need it?

Conclude from it—

with death!

For its sanctity is more stringent than that of the Sanctuary.

And Rabbi Judah,

what is the reason that he does not expound the kal va-chomer?

If the Merciful One had written “into the Sanctuary” and had not written “from within the curtain,” I would have said: What is the “Sanctuary”

written in the verse? It means

“from within the curtain”; but

if he entered the

Sanctuary,

the prohibition of

even the negative commandment would not

be transgressed and he would not receive lashes. Therefore both had to be written, to reveal that what is written “Sanctuary” means the Sanctuary, and that both for the Sanctuary and for “from within the curtain” he transgresses a negative commandment and receives lashes for both.

And the Rabbis: That

the Sanctuary would not be called “Sanctuary” had “from within the curtain” not been written,

you cannot say,

and the Torah did not need to teach us here that “Sanctuary” means the Sanctuary, for elsewhere we find

that the entire Sanctuary is called “Sanctuary,” as it is stated: “And the curtain shall divide for you between the Sanctuary”

that is, the Sanctuary,

“and between the Holy of Holies.”

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Judah, what is his reason

for disagreeing with the Rabbis?

And we answer:

If it would enter your mind as the Rabbis say,

that one who enters from within the curtain is put to death,

the Merciful One should write “into the Sanctuary and from within the curtain”

alone,

and would not need

to write

“to the front of the cover,” and I would say: From within the curtain, with death; to the front of the cover, is it necessary

to teach that he becomes liable to death?! For from the moment he entered from within the curtain he was already liable to death, and “to the front of the cover” is also included within “from within the curtain”; all the more so he should be liable to death. Therefore,

“to the front of the cover,” which the Merciful One wrote—why do I need it? Conclude from it: “to the front of the cover” with death; “from within the curtain” as a warning

and he transgresses only a negative commandment and receives lashes.

And the Rabbis

why do they not expound this kal va-chomer?

It is indeed unnecessary

to write “to the front of the cover,”

and this that the Merciful One wrote, “to the front of the cover,”—

to exclude

one who enters

by an irregular route,

such as an obstructed route: he breached beneath the wall of the innermost area and made an opening in the south or north and entered, rather than entering through the opening in the east, so that his face would be toward the west [and Rashi further explained that he entered through the opening, turned diagonally, and proceeded to the sides; he is not liable because “to the front” is required, meaning that his face must be toward the east; see further explanations in Tosafot] 169.

As taught by the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob,

it is written

“to the front of the cover, eastward”—

this establishes a principle

and teaches concerning

every place where it is stated “front,”

that it

means only the eastern front,

that is, the eastern side, as here, where “eastward” is written concerning “front.”

And now they explain what we said above, that the contradiction between the beraitot concerning the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer, when performed not directed, can be resolved according to Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis:

And Rabbi Judah

holds that if the verse had come only to exclude an irregular route,

let the verse say “front”; what is

“toward the front”?

Conclude from it: “toward” is precise

and is not superfluous. Therefore, one who enters toward the front of the cover is liable to death, while “from within the curtain” involves a negative commandment.

And the Rabbis—

“toward” is not precise,

and therefore they expound “toward the front of the cover” to exclude an irregular route, while “toward from within the curtain” indicates death.

And

it follows: according to

Rabbi Judah, who says that “toward the front of the cover” is precise,

the same law applies to

“and he shall sprinkle toward the front”; it too is precise.

Therefore, if he performed the sprinklings not directed, they are invalid 170.

And

for

the Rabbis, since there

“toward the front”

is not precise, so too

“toward the front”

is not precise;

therefore, if he performed the sprinklings not directed, they are valid.

Rav Joseph challenged Rabbi Judah: From “toward” being precise, “upon” too should be precise!

That is, “And he shall sprinkle upon the front of the cover on Yom Kippur” [Leviticus 16:14]—is that too precise?

Rather,

if “upon” is precise, the following difficulty arises:

In the Second Temple, when there were no Ark and cover,

for King Josiah had hidden the Ark,

would they likewise not perform the sprinklings?!

But we have learned that he does sprinkle?

And we answer:

Rabba bar Ulla said: The verse says, “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary of the holy place,”

and they expound: he sprinkles upon

the place sanctified for the Sanctuary,

that is, upon the place of the Ark, even when there is no Ark there.

And we answer further:

Rava said: Both of them are according to the Rabbis!

For the two beraitot concerning sprinklings not directed toward the entrance can be reconciled,