Menachot 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

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

And from here we learn that the applications are indispensable for the bull brought for an unwitting communal transgression. The continuation of this beraita contains teachings showing that the applications are likewise indispensable for the bull of the anointed priest and the goats for idol worship; see Rashi here and the Gemara, Zevahim 39a.].

The Sages taught: The seven sprinklings performed in the rite of the red

heifer

whether he performed them not for their own sake or without directing them

toward the entrance of the Sanctuary are

invalid. The sprinklings performed not for their own sake are invalid, because it is written: “It is a sin-offering”; the Torah called it a “sin-offering,” and with regard to a sin-offering the halakha is that if one performed it not for its own sake, it is invalid. And the sprinklings performed without directing them are invalid because it is written: “Toward the front of the Tent of Meeting,” indicating that he must direct them toward it; and with regard to the red heifer it is written: “A statute,” and therefore the requirement that they be directed is indispensable.

An application performed not for its own sake is invalid because it is written: “It is a sin-offering”; the Torah called it a “sin-offering,” and in the case of a sin-offering, if one performs it not for its own sake, it is invalid. An application performed without proper direction is invalid because it is written: “Toward the front of the Tent of Meeting,” indicating that it must be directed properly. And with regard to the red cow it is written: “An eternal statute,” and therefore the requirement that it be properly directed is indispensable.

And

the sprinklings

performed inside,

such as those of Yom Kippur, and those of the bull of the anointed koen, the bull for an unwitting communal decision, and the goats for idolatry,

and those performed in the rite of the leper

at the Nikanor Gate, where he must perform seven sprinklings directed toward the Holy of Holies for the sake of the leper, if he performed them

not for their own sake—

they are invalid.

But if he performed them

without directing them

toward the Holy of Holies, they are

valid.

And we raise an objection:

But was it not taught in a beraita with regard to the red heifer

that if he performed the sprinklings

not for their own sake—they are

invalid,

but if they were

without directing them—they are

valid?

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

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said: It is not difficult: This

beraita that states “valid” is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the phrase “toward the front” is not precise;

that

beraita that states “invalid” is in accordance with the opinion of

the Rabbis,

who hold that “toward the front” is precise.

As it was taught: Those lacking atonement

—impure people, such as a zav or a leper, who must bring an offering on the eighth day, who immersed during the day and nightfall arrived, but who still need to bring their offerings—

who entered the Temple courtyard

unwittingly are liable to bring a sin-offering; intentionally, they are punished by karet,

as is the law with regard to an impure person who enters the Temple,

and needless to say, one who immersed that day,

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

and all other impure people

who did not immerse at all, are liable.

And with regard to pure people who entered beyond their permitted partitions,

if they entered

the entire Sanctuary,

their punishment is

forty

lashes, because they violated the prohibition: “And he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary” . But if they entered

beyond the curtain,

into the innermost area where the Ark was, but did not proceed as far as the front of the Ark, or

to the front of the Ark-cover,

where they proceeded as far as the front of the Ark, their punishment is

death. Rabbi Yehuda says: The entire

Sanctuary

and beyond the curtain—

forty lashes; and “to the front of the curtain” is punishable by death.

And he explains:

With regard to what do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree

?

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

The Rabbis hold that “into the Sanctuary”

means the Sanctuary proper;

for “he shall not come”

he is flogged, while

“beyond the curtain” and “to the front of the Ark-cover”

are covered by “and he shall not die.”

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that “into the Sanctuary and beyond the curtain”

are covered by “he shall not come,”

and he is flogged,

while “to the front of the Ark-cover”

is covered by “and he shall not die.”

And we raise an objection:

What is the reason of the Rabbis

who expound “beyond the curtain” together with “to the front of the Ark-cover,” and consequently impose death for this, rather than expounding the verse as Rabbi Yehuda does?

And we answer:

If it enters your mind that it is as Rabbi Yehuda says,

that for entering beyond the curtain one is liable only to lashes and not to death,

the Merciful One should have written only: “into the Sanctuary and to the front of

the Ark-cover,”

and

there would be no need

to write

“beyond the curtain,” and I would say:

If one who enters the

Sanctuary is liable

lashes,

is it necessary to say that one who enters beyond the curtain

is liable to lashes? The Sanctuary is included within “beyond the curtain,” since it is impossible to enter beyond the curtain except by way of the Sanctuary, and from the moment he entered the Sanctuary he was already liable to lashes. If so,

why do I need “beyond the curtain,” which the Merciful One wrote?

Conclude from it—

death!

For its sanctity is greater than that of the Sanctuary.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

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

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

written in the verse? It means

“beyond the curtain”; but

if he entered the

Sanctuary,

the prohibition of

a negative commandment would not apply either,

and he would not be flogged. Therefore, both phrases had to be written, to reveal that “Sanctuary” means the Sanctuary proper, and that one violates a negative commandment and is flogged both for entering the Sanctuary and for entering beyond the curtain.

And the Rabbis: That

claim—that the Sanctuary would not be called “Sanctuary” had “beyond the curtain” not been written—

you cannot say,

and the Torah need not teach us here that “Sanctuary” means the Sanctuary proper, since 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 proper—“

and the Holy of Holies.”

And we raise an objection:

And what is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason

for disagreeing with the Rabbis?

And we answer:

If it enters your mind that it is as the Rabbis say,

that one who enters beyond the curtain is liable to death,

the Merciful One should have written only “into the Sanctuary and beyond the curtain,”

and

there would be no need

to write

“to the front of the Ark-cover,” and I would say: If one who enters beyond the curtain is liable to death, is it necessary to say that one who enters to the front of the Ark-cover

is liable to death? From the moment he enters beyond the curtain, he is already liable to death, and “to the front of the Ark-cover” is included in “beyond the curtain”; all the more so he should be liable to death. If so,

why do I need “to the front of the Ark-cover,” which the Merciful One wrote? Conclude from it: “to the front of the Ark-cover” is punishable by death; “beyond the curtain” is a warning,

and he violates only a negative commandment and is flogged.

And the Rabbis,

why do they not derive this kal va-chomer?

Indeed, there is no need

to write “to the front of the Ark-cover,”

and the reason that the Merciful One wrote “to the front of the Ark-cover” is

to exclude

one who enters

by an irregular route,

such as an obstructed route: he tunneled beneath the wall of the innermost area, 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, since “to the front” is required, meaning that his face must be toward the east. See also other explanations in Tosafot] .

As taught by the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

it is written:

“To the front of the Ark-cover, eastward”—

this establishes a principle

and teaches with regard to

every place where “front” is stated

that it

means only the eastern front,

that is, the eastern side, as here, where “eastward” is written with regard to “front.”

And now the Gemara explains what we said above, that the contradiction between the beraitot concerning the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer, when performed without directing them, can be resolved according to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis:

And Rabbi Yehuda

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

let the verse say merely “front”; why

“to the front”?

Conclude from it that “to” is precise

and is not superfluous. Therefore, one who enters to the front of the Ark-cover is liable to death, while entering beyond the curtain is prohibited by a negative commandment.

And the Rabbis—

“to” is not precise,

and therefore they expound “to the front of the Ark-cover” to exclude an irregular route, while “to beyond the curtain” indicates liability to death.

And

it follows that according to

Rabbi Yehuda, who says that “to the front of the Ark-cover” is precise,

the same is true of

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

Therefore, if he performed the sprinklings without directing them, they are invalid.

And

according to

the Rabbis, since there

“to the front”

is not precise, so too

“toward the front”

is not precise;

therefore, if he performed the sprinklings without directing them, they are valid.

Rav Yosef challenged Rabbi Yehuda: If “to” is precise, “upon” should also be precise!

That is, is the phrase “and he shall sprinkle upon the front of the Ark-cover of Yom Kippur” [Leviticus 16:14] also precise?

Rather,

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

In the Second Temple, when there was neither Ark nor Ark-cover,

as King Josiah had concealed the Ark,

did they likewise not perform the sprinklings?!

Yet we learned that he does sprinkle.

And we answer:

Rabba bar Ulla said: The verse states: “And he shall atone for the Sanctuary of the Sanctuary”;

and they expound: He sprinkles upon

the place sanctified for the sake of the Sanctuary,

that is, upon the place of the Ark, even when the Ark is not there.

And another answer is offered:

Rava said: Both beraitot are in accordance with the Rabbis!

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