Zevachim 82a (פב.) — the Talmud in English

And

if you should say:

let him place

first

the blood inside, and afterward let him place the blood outside

and the external blood that entered inside would not become disqualified, because according to Rabbi Eliezer only the blood of a sin-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering that enter inside become disqualified, but not other blood]

Indeed, if he did so, it would be proper. However,

since there is

blood

of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

that became mixed with the blood of the internal sin-offerings, with regard to which it is impossible to act in this manner,

for when their blood enters

of the sin-offering and guilt-offering inside while mixed with the blood of internal sin-offerings, they are

disqualified,

therefore

it is not unequivocally stated

that one should give the blood first inside and afterward outside [and the tanna did not trouble himself to distinguish between a case where the blood of an elevation-offering and peace-offering became mixed with the blood of internal offerings and a case where the blood of a sin-offering and guilt-offering became mixed with the blood of internal offerings].

We learned in the Mishna:

as Rabbi Akiva would say,

all blood that entered the Sanctuary to effect atonement is disqualified.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The analogy of Rabbi Akiva

who holds that all blood is included in the verse, “And any sin-offering, some of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to effect atonement in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire,”

to what is this comparable?

To a student who diluted wine for his teacher

with hot water, and his teacher said to him

while he saw him occupied with diluting it with hot water

at that time—

Dilute some for me! He said to him,

the student to his teacher:

With what

shall I dilute it, with hot water or with cold water?

His teacher said to him

: Are we not

occupied with hot water,

and if I wished you to dilute it with hot water, I would not have needed to say anything.

Now

that I told you to dilute it, it necessarily means that I intended to say:

whether with hot water or with cold water!

This concludes the analogy.

And the application of the analogy:

Here too, since

the entire passage

deals with a sin-offering,

if so, the words “And any

sin-offering

some of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting”

that the Merciful One wrote, why do I need them?

Even if it had been written, “And any offering whose blood is brought,” the verse would have referred to a sin-offering, since that is what the passage discusses.

Rather, this is what it is saying: I am not speaking to you only of a sin-offering

that becomes disqualified when brought inside,

but

a sin-offering too is like

all sacred offerings

that become disqualified when brought inside. And the verse is necessary to teach this, lest one say that a sin-offering is different, since we find sin-offerings whose blood enters inside, and therefore even an external sin-offering should not become disqualified; the verse teaches us that an external sin-offering is like all sacred offerings, becoming disqualified when brought inside.

Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, challenged this: Since

already

all sacred offerings were included

in that passage with regard

to the removal and rinsing

of the vessels in which they were cooked—for although that passage speaks of a sin-offering, one must remove and rinse even vessels in which the other offerings were cooked—and afterward the verse “And any sin-offering, some of whose blood is brought” was written, if so, it is difficult: After the passage has already dealt with all sacred offerings [through the inclusion of “holy of holies”],

the sin-offering that the Merciful One wrote

in the verse “And any sin-offering, some of whose blood is brought,”

why do I need it?

Rather,

infer from it

the opposite:

a sin-offering, yes; anything else, no.

But

[if you attempt to explain it by analogy,]

it is comparable only to a student who diluted wine for his teacher with either hot or cold water, and his teacher said to him

: His teacher said:

Do not dilute any for me except with hot water!

In that case, it is obvious that he specifically meant hot water. The same applies to the application of the analogy: After all sacred offerings were included with regard to removal and rinsing, and the verse said, concerning bringing blood inside, “sin-offering,” its intention must be specifically a sin-offering!?

Rather, the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling

that he disqualified all sin-offerings whose blood entered inside is that he derived it

from “sin-offering”

and “any sin-offering.”

The verse could have written merely “sin-offering,” but it wrote “any sin-offering” to include the other offerings as well.

As it is taught in a beraita: “Sin-offering”

was stated with regard to the disqualification of a sin-offering whose blood entered inside.

I have derived only a sin-offering; the holy of holies

that resemble a sin-offering, as it too is a holy offering of the highest degree—

from where

do I derive them? The verse states: “Any sin-offering.”

Offerings of lesser sanctity, from where? The verse states: “And any sin-offering,”

these are the words of

Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Even if you include everything all day long

I will not accept your teaching! Rather,

this is what we must expound:

I have derived only an individual sin-offering,

which is what the verse discusses;

from where

do I derive a communal sin-offering, so that if its blood entered inside it becomes disqualified?

The verse states: “Any sin-offering.” And I have derived only a sin-offering

that is

male

[as will be explained below],

a sin-offering

that is

female, from where?

And we challenge this:

Is this not backwards?!

How can it be possible to say such a thing—that the verse discusses a male sin-offering and includes a female sin-offering? After all, an ordinary individual sin-offering [apart from the offering of a ruler] is female!?

Rather, this is what

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili

said: I have derived only a female sin-offering; a male sin-offering,

of a ruler who sinned,

from where

do I derive that it too becomes disqualified when its blood is brought inside?

The verse states: “And any sin-offering.”

And we challenge this:

And

if

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds

that

these verses come for this purpose? But it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: This entire passage

of “And any sin-offering, some of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting”

does not speak

of the disqualification of sacred offerings whose blood is supposed to be given outside but was brought inside,

but

it deals

with the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned

whose blood must be brought inside, but a disqualification occurred with regard to them and they cannot be sacrificed. The Merciful One says that since they became disqualified, they must be burned in the Temple courtyard, in a place called the House of the Hearth, and not according to the law of valid bulls and goats that are burned, whose flesh is burned outside the three camps.

And this is the meaning of this verse: “And any sin-offering, some of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting [i.e., the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, whose blood is brought inside] to effect atonement, [but a disqualification occurred with regard to it,] shall be burned in the Sanctuary.” Its place of burning is not outside, as is the case with a valid sin-offering; rather, the verse comes to say:

to burn their disqualified ones

of the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned

at the House of the Hearth,

in the courtyard.

And with regard to the fact that this verse also states, “it shall not be eaten,” the intention of the verse is to prohibit eating the flesh of the bulls and goats that are burned

and to incur a prohibition for eating them.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: According to your words,

a

external

sin-offering whose blood entered inside, from where

do we know that it becomes disqualified?

He said to them: It is written concerning the external sin-offering goat that the sons of Aaron burned on the eighth day of the inauguration, when Moses said to them, Why was it burned, given that

“

its blood was not brought

inside, into the Sanctuary.” This proves that if its blood had been brought inside, it would properly have been burned, because it would have been an external sin-offering whose blood had been brought inside.

If so, it is difficult: It is evident from this beraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili derived the disqualification of an external sin-offering whose blood was brought inside from what Moses said to the sons of Aaron, and not from this passage, “And any sin-offering, some of whose blood is brought,” which he interprets as referring to the law of disqualified bulls and goats that are burned, which must be burned in the courtyard!?

And we answer: Actually, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the aforementioned verse as referring to the burning of disqualified bulls and goats that are burned. And when he expounds it with regard to external individual and communal sin-offerings whose blood was brought inside,

it is according to the position of Rabbi Akiva

who interprets it in this manner;

he says

that, contrary to Rabbi Akiva’s view, one cannot include all sacred offerings whose blood entered inside; rather, the verse deals only with a sin-offering.

Mishna:

a.

A sin-offering whose blood was received in two cups, and one of them went outside

into the courtyard and became disqualified, the offering does not thereby become disqualified, since the blood that remained in the cup

inside

is blood

that is valid,

and he gives some of it on the altar and fulfills his obligation through the offering.

And if

one of them entered inside

the Sanctuary—

Rabbi Yosei deems it valid

to give from the blood that remained

outside,

which was not brought inside, and the offering fulfills his obligation.

But the Sages deem it disqualified

the blood that remained outside from being sprinkled, because part of the offering’s blood was brought inside.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: A change of place in taking blood outside the courtyard is more stringent than a change of place to the inside of the Sanctuary, as he proceeds to explain. If so, we can derive a kal va-chomer:

A change of place by taking blood outside the courtyard is more severe than a change of place by bringing it inside the Sanctuary, as he proceeds to explain. If so, we can draw an a-fortiori inference:

If

a change to the outside, which is a severe matter, is a change

to a place where thought disqualifies with regard to the outside,

for one who thinks at the time of slaughtering to sprinkle its blood outside disqualifies the offering, nevertheless, despite its severity,

it did not render

the blood that remained inside disqualified when he took one of the two cups outside,

the

blood

that remained

inside

like that which went outside,

like blood that goes outside and becomes disqualified; rather, the blood that remained inside retains its validity, he gives it on the altar, and the offering is valid.

All the more so if he made a lesser change, a change—to the inside, which is

a place where thought does not disqualify,

for if he slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling its blood

inside

in the Sanctuary, it is valid,

is it not the case that we should not render

the blood

that remained

that did not enter inside

like that which entered

and became disqualified, but should leave it in its valid state?!

b. Blood that was given on the external altar and

entered

in order

to effect atonement,

even

though it did not effect atonement,

i.e., its applications were not given in the Sanctuary, the offering is

disqualified; these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.

Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is not disqualified

The offering is not disqualified

until it effects atonement,

meaning, until its applications are given inside the Sanctuary.

c.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he brought in

the blood while he was

unwitting,

it is

valid.

d.

All disqualified blood that was given on the altar,

although the altar sanctifies it and renders it fit to be given [for disqualified blood that ascended upon the altar does not descend, because the altar sanctifies it and renders it fit to be given], does not effect acceptance. Even the acceptance effected by the tzitz is of no avail for it, because

the tzitz did not effect acceptance

for all disqualified blood

but

for

impure

blood alone,

as the tzitz effects acceptance for impure blood, but it does not effect acceptance for blood that went outside.

Gemara:

It is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said:

Are these matters not

a kal va-chomer

?

If, in a place where thought disqualifies with regard to the outside,

when one thinks at the time of slaughtering to give the blood outside, nevertheless

the blood that

went out in one cup

outside did not disqualify

the blood

that

remained in the other cup

inside.

In a place where thought does not disqualify with regard to the inside,

for if he thought at the time of slaughtering to give the blood inside,

, is it not the case that it should not disqualify the blood that

entered

inside the

blood

that

remained

outside?!

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

Behold, it says: “some of whose blood is brought,”

and its meaning is:

even

some of its blood was brought inside.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to them: Since you have established that the verse comes to say that even some of its blood brought inside disqualifies,

we can derive from here

a kal va-chomer with regard to blood that goes outside,

that if some of the blood went outside, all the blood becomes disqualified. And let us say

from now on: If, in a place where thought does not disqualify

—where one who thinks of giving its blood

inside

does not disqualify it—nevertheless

it disqualifies the blood that

entered

inside

also

the

blood

that

remained

outside,

if so,

in a place where thought disqualifies,

where one who thinks at the time of slaughtering to give the blood

outside

disqualifies it,

is it not the case that it should disqualify the blood that

went out

outside the

blood

that

remained

inside?!

They said to him: Behold, it says: “some of whose blood is brought

inside.” “Some of whose blood” is a restriction, teaching us: Only blood

that enters disqualifies

the blood that remains;

and

blood

that goes outside does not disqualify

the blood that remains.

And the Gemara discusses this:

And should thought

at the time of slaughtering to give the blood

inside disqualify by means of a kal va-chomer: If, in a place where the blood that

went out

outside did not disqualify

the blood

that

remained

inside,

nevertheless

thought disqualifies with regard to the outside

if he thought at the time of slaughtering to give the blood outside.

In a place where the blood that

entered

inside disqualified the blood

that remained

outside, is it not the case that thought should disqualify

when he thought at the time of slaughtering to give its blood

inside?!

And we answer:

Behold, it says

with regard to one who thinks of giving the blood outside its proper place,

“on the third day,”

and we established it as follows: “If it is not needed for the thought of outside its proper time, apply it to the thought of outside its proper place,” and the verse mentions “the third” to teach us that the thought of outside its proper place does not disqualify,