Zevachim 82a — the Talmud in English

over the application of outside. For the application of bloods in the Sanctuary is more important than the application of bloods outside. And

if you should say ,

let him place

first

inside, and afterward let him place outside [

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

Indeed, if he did so, it is properly so. But ,

since there is

blood

of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

that became mixed with the blood of the inner sin-offerings, with which it is impossible to do this ,

for when their blood enters

the blood of the sin-offering and guilt-offering inside, when they are mixed with the blood of the inner sin-offerings, they are

disqualified,

therefore

it is not definite for him

to say categorically that he should give it first inside and afterward outside [and the tanna did not trouble himself to distinguish between the blood of a burnt-offering and peace-offering that became mixed with the blood of inner offerings and a sin-offering and guilt-offering that became mixed with the blood of inner offerings].

We learned in the Mishna:

that Rabbi Akiva would say,

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

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The parable of Rabbi Akiva

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

to what is it comparable?

To a student who mixed for his master

wine

with hot water, and his master said to him

when he saw him occupied with mixing it with hot water:

Mix for me! He said to him,

the student to his master:

With what

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

He said to him

his master: But

are we not occupied with hot water,

and if it had been my wish that you mix it with hot water, I would not have needed to say anything.

Now

that I have said to you to mix it, it necessarily means that I intend to say

whether with hot water or with cold water!

That is the parable.

And the lesson:

here too, since

the entire passage

is concerned with a sin-offering and proceeds,

if so, “And any

sin-offering

whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting”

which the Merciful One wrote, why do I need it?

For even if it had been written, “And anything whose blood is brought,” the intention of the verse would have been a sin-offering, since that passage is concerned with it.

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

that is disqualified by being brought inside,

but

a sin-offering too is like

all sacred offerings

that are disqualified by being brought inside. And the verse is necessary to teach us this, so that we should not say that a sin-offering is different, for we find sin-offerings whose blood enters inside, and even an external sin-offering would not be disqualified; it teaches us that an external sin-offering is indeed like all sacred offerings, to be disqualified by entry inside.

Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, raised an objection to this: Since

already

all sacred offerings were included

in that passage with regard

to scouring and rinsing

of the vessels in which they were cooked—for although that passage speaks of a sin-offering, one must scour and rinse also the vessels in which the other offerings were cooked—and afterward the verse “And any sin-offering whose blood is brought” was written, if so, the difficulty is: after the passage already concerns all sacred offerings [through the inclusion “most holy”],

“sin-offering,” which the Merciful One wrote

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

why do I need it?

Rather,

learn from it

the opposite:

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

But [

if you would come to compare it to a parable]

it is comparable only to a student who mixed for his master both with hot water and with cold water, and his master said to him

his master:

Do not mix for me except with hot water!

For then it is obvious that his intention is specifically hot water. And so too in the lesson: after all sacred offerings were included with regard to scouring and rinsing, and the verse said, concerning bringing the blood inside, “sin-offering,” its intention is specifically a sin-offering!?

Rather, the reason for Rabbi Akiva

who disqualified all the sin-offerings whose blood entered inside is that he learned

from “sin-offering”

“any sin-offering.”

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

As it was taught: “Sin-offering”

was stated regarding the disqualification of a sin-offering whose blood entered inside.

I have derived only a sin-offering; the most holy offerings

that resemble a sin-offering, for it too is most holy,

from where

do I derive them? The verse says, “Any sin-offering.”

The lesser holy offerings, from where? The verse says, “And any sin-offering,”

the words of

Rabbi Akiva.

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

I will not heed you! Rather,

this is what we have to expound:

I have derived only an individual sin-offering,

about which the verse speaks;

a communal sin-offering, from where

do I derive that if its blood entered inside it is disqualified?

The verse says, “Any sin-offering.” And I have derived only a sin-offering

that is

male [

as he explains below]

a sin-offering

that is

female, from where?

And we challenge this:

Where could this be going?!

How is it possible to say such a thing, that the verse speaks of a male sin-offering and we include a female sin-offering? Surely an ordinary individual sin-offering [apart from the offering of a ruler] is female!?

Rather, this is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is saying

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

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

belonging to a ruler who sinned,

from where

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

The verse says, “And any sin-offering.”

And we challenge:

And

if

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili holds

that

these verses came for this purpose? But it was taught: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: This entire matter

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

does not speak

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

but

it deals

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

whose blood must be brought inside, and a disqualification occurred in them and it is impossible to sacrifice them; and the Merciful One says that since they were disqualified, they must be burned in the Courtyard, in the place called “the House of the Fortress,” and not according to the law of fit 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 whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting [that is, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, whose blood is brought inside] to effect atonement, [and a disqualification occurred in it,] in the Sanctuary it shall be burned.” Its place of burning is not outside, like a fit 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 Fortress,

in the Courtyard.

And the fact that it is also written in this verse, “It shall not be eaten,” means that the verse intends to prohibit the eating of the flesh of the bulls and the goats that are burned,

and to place one under a prohibition against eating them.

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: According to your words,

a sin-offering

external

whose blood entered inside, from where

is it derived that it is 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? For “

surely its blood was not brought

inside, into the Sanctuary.” It is proven from here that if its blood had been brought inside, they properly burned it, because it would have been an external sin-offering whose blood had been brought inside.

And if so, the difficulty is that it is proven 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 of “And any sin-offering whose blood is brought,” which he establishes as concerning the law of disqualified bulls and goats that are burned, which must be burned in the Courtyard!?

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

is according to the words of Rabbi Akiva,

who establishes it in this way;

he says,

that one should not include, as Rabbi Akiva does, all sacred offerings whose blood entered inside; rather, the verse deals only with a sin-offering.

Mishna:

a.

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

to the Courtyard, and became disqualified , the offering is not disqualified by this, for the blood that remained in the cup

inside

is blood

that is fit,

and he gives from it on the altar, and fulfills his obligation through the offering.

And if

one of them entered inside

the Sanctuary,

Rabbi Yosei declares it fit

to give from the blood that remained

in the external cup,

which was not brought inside, and the offering counts for him toward his obligation.

But the Sages declare disqualified

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

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: The change of place involved in taking the blood outside the Courtyard is more severe than the change of place to inside the Sanctuary, as he explains below; and if so, we have to say 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 outside, which is a severe matter, a change

in a place where thought disqualifies when directed outside,

for one who thinks during slaughter to sprinkle its blood outside thereby disqualifies the offering, nevertheless, despite its severity,

it did not make

in the case where he took one of the two cups outside,

the

blood

that remained

inside

like that which went outside,

like blood that went outside and became disqualified; rather, the blood that remained inside retains its fitness, he gives it on the altar, and the offering is fit.

All the more so if he made the lesser change, a change—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 fit,

is it not the case that we should not make

the blood

that remained

which did not enter inside

like that which entered

and became disqualified, but should maintain it in its fitness?!

b. Blood that was given on the external altar which

entered

in order

to effect atonement,

even

though it did not effect atonement,

that is, its portions 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

until it effects atonement,

until its portions are given inside the Sanctuary.

c.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he brought

the blood while he was

unwitting,

it is

fit.

d.

All disqualified bloods that were given upon the altar,

although the altar sanctifies them and renders them fit for giving [for disqualified bloods that ascended upon the altar do not descend, because the altar sanctifies them and renders them fit for giving], do not effect acceptance. And even the acceptance of the tzitz is of no avail for them, because

the tzitz effected acceptance

for all the disqualified bloods

only

for blood

that is impure

alone,

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

Gemara:

It was taught: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said:

Are these matters not

a kal va-chomer

?

If in a place where thought disqualifies when directed outside,

when one thinks during slaughter to give the blood outside, nevertheless

it did not disqualify blood that

went outside in one cup

outside the

blood

that

remained in the second cup

inside.

In a place where thought does not disqualify when directed inside,

for if he thought during slaughter to give the blood inside

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

entered

inside the

blood

that

remained

outside?!

The Sages said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

For it says, “whose blood is brought,”

and its meaning is:

even

part of its blood was brought inside.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to them: Since you have established the verse as saying that even part of its blood brought inside disqualifies,

let us derive from here

a kal va-chomer concerning that which went outside,

that if part of the blood went outside, all the blood is disqualified. And let us say

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

in it, where one who thinks to give its blood

inside

does not disqualify, nevertheless

it disqualifies blood that

entered

inside

also

the

blood

that

remained

outside,

if so,

a place where thought disqualifies,

where one thinks during slaughter to give the blood

outside

and thereby disqualifies,

is it not the case that it should disqualify blood that

went outside

outside the

blood

that

remained

inside?!

They said to him: For it says, “whose blood is brought

from it.” “From it” is an exclusion, 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

during slaughter to give the blood

inside be disqualifying by a kal va-chomer: If in a place where blood that

went outside

outside the

blood

that

remained

inside,

nevertheless

thought disqualifies when directed outside

if he thought during slaughter to give the blood outside.

In a place where blood that

entered

inside the blood that

remained

outside, does it not follow that thought should disqualify

when he thought during slaughter to give its blood

inside?!

And we answer:

For it says

concerning one who thinks to give the blood outside its proper place,

“On the third day,”

and we established it as meaning, “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 “third” to teach us that a thought of outside its proper place does not disqualify,