Zevachim 82b — the Talmud in English

Except if he had in mind

a place that would be “threefold,”

namely, one that, during the time when private altars were permitted, was suitable for three things:

a.

With blood —

that it was suitable to sprinkle blood upon.

b.

With flesh —

that it was suitable to eat the flesh of the offering there.

c.

With sacrificial portions —

that it was suitable to burn the sacrificial portions of the offering there.

And such a “threefold” place is only outside the Temple courtyard, during the time when private altars were permitted, and not inside the Sanctuary, for flesh was not eaten there and sacrificial portions were not burned there.

And the Gemara continued to discuss:

And should a thought not invalidate

when, at the time of slaughter, he had in mind to sprinkle the blood

outside, by a kal va-chomer:

And if a place that invalidated blood that

entered

inside the

blood

that

remained

outside does not have an invalidating thought

in one who has in mind to place the blood

inside,

a place that did not invalidate

blood

that

went out

outside the

blood

that

remained

inside — is it not all the more so that it should not invalidate

there

a thought

that he had in mind at the time of slaughter to place its blood

outside?!

Therefore,

the verse states: “the third.”

To teach us concerning the thought of

outside its time,

which invalidates; and later in the verse it says

“piggul,”

to teach the invalidation of the thought of

outside its place.

And the Gemara continues and says:

Flesh that goes out outside

is

invalid [as it is stated, “And flesh in the field you shall not eat”; once flesh has gone outside its boundary, it is prohibited and becomes invalid].

[as it is stated: “And meat in the field you shall not eat”; once the meat has gone beyond its boundary, it is forbidden and disqualified].

But flesh

that enters inside

the Sanctuary is

valid.

That it should be subject to the law

For it would have been possible to derive by a kal va-chomer that flesh entering inside the Sanctuary

should

be

invalid —

And

outside the Temple courtyard,

in a place that did not invalidate blood that

went

outside

the courtyard

the

blood

that

remained

inside

the courtyard, nevertheless,

flesh that goes out outside is invalid.

If so,

a place that invalidated the blood inside on account of that outside —

flesh that enters inside,

which is a place that invalidated blood entering inside on account of the blood that remained outside — is it not

certain that it should invalidate

there flesh entering inside?!

The verse says

by way of a limitation: “that was brought

from its blood,”

and we expound:

its blood, but not its flesh.

Lest you say: If so, let us now derive

a kal va-chomer for flesh that goes out: And

inside,

in a place that invalidated the blood inside on account of that outside,

nevertheless

flesh that enters inside

is

valid.

All the more so outside the Temple courtyard, which is

a place that did not invalidate blood that

goes

outside

the blood

that

remained

inside — is it not certain

that flesh going outward, outside the Temple courtyard, is

valid?!

Your answer is:

The verse says, “And flesh in the field, torn, you shall not eat,”

and we expound this verse as follows:

Once flesh has gone outside its boundary,

it is

prohibited.

And the meaning of the word “torn” is also that what goes outside its boundary is considered prohibited for eating, just as a torn animal is prohibited for eating.

The Sages taught:

Moses our teacher challenged Aaron and his sons: Why did you burn the sin-offering on the eighth day of the inauguration? And he said to them, “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary

inside.”

And the Sages derived from here:

I have derived only

from here the invalidation of

a

sin-offering whose blood was brought before and inside, into the Holy of Holies, that is,

“inside.”

But a sin-offering whose blood was brought into the

Sanctuary — from where

do we know that it too was invalidated?

The verse states, “into the Sanctuary,”

and the Sanctuary too is “holy.”

And we raise the following:

Let

the verse

say “holy,”

and the Sanctuary would be included,

and let it not say “inside,”

and we would know by a kal va-chomer that before and inside is included in “holy”?

And we answer:

Rava said:

If the verse had said only “holy,” and not “inside,” I would have said that “holy” means before and inside, and we would not know that it is also invalidated in the Sanctuary. But now that it says both “holy” and “inside,”

one comes and teaches about the other,

for “holy” means the Sanctuary, and “inside” means before and inside.

As is the case with a resident and a hired laborer,

as the Torah says: “A resident of a priest” and “a hired laborer of a priest” may not eat holy food [teruma]. As will be explained, we learn who is the hired laborer mentioned in the verse and who is the resident through the principle that “one comes and teaches about the other.”

As it was taught:

The Torah says:

“Resident” — this is

a pierced slave who is

acquired as an eternal acquisition

until the Jubilee.

“Hired laborer”

is a Hebrew slave who is

acquired as an acquisition

for six

years.

Neither of them may eat teruma even when they are the slaves of a priest, despite the fact that Canaanite slaves of a priest may eat teruma, by virtue of being the priest’s possession.

And if you ask:

Let

the verse

say “resident,”

who does not eat teruma,

and let it not say “hired laborer,” and I will say

on my own: If a “resident” of a priest, who is

acquired as an eternal acquisition and does not eat

teruma; then a “hired laborer,” who is

acquired as an acquisition for years, is it not all the more so

that he does not eat?

Your answer is:

If so,

if the verse had said only “resident,”

I would have said, “Resident” means one acquired as an acquisition for years. But

one who is

acquired as an eternal acquisition would eat

teruma. Therefore,

the verse came

and said

“hired laborer” and taught about “resident,”

to inform us

that this,

“resident,” is

acquired as an eternal acquisition, and this,

“hired laborer,” is

acquired as an acquisition for years. And neither one eats,

neither the one acquired as an acquisition for years nor the one acquired as an eternal acquisition.

Abaye said to him:

How is it possible to compare “resident and hired laborer,” which are stated with regard to teruma, to “holy and inside,” which are stated with regard to blood brought inside?

Granted, there,

with regard to resident and hired laborer, it is possible to say “one comes and teaches about the other,” for

they are two bodies,

and the prohibition of one has no connection to the prohibition of the other; therefore, it was necessary to write both of them, so that one should come and teach about the other.

For there,

even though it would have been appropriate for the verse to write

explicitly:

“A pierced slave

may not eat,”

and the other one,

the one sold for six years,

comes by a kal va-chomer

that he does not eat teruma, and it was not necessary to write both “resident” and “hired laborer” — this is not difficult for us, since it is possible to answer:

Something that comes by a kal va-chomer, the verse took the trouble to write.

But here,

with regard to the Sanctuary and before and inside, there is a difficulty: Why did the verse state both of them? It should have specified the Sanctuary explicitly, and before and inside would also have been included in it.

And if so, there is a great difficulty:

Since it was invalidated

already when the blood entered

the Sanctuary,

then what does the invalidation of bringing it

before and inside seek?

For it is impossible to enter before and inside without first passing through the Sanctuary and becoming invalid there; if so, the invalidation of before and inside is superfluous?

Rather, Abaye said: “Inside” is necessary

to be written

only for

one who entered not in the usual manner, by

a distorted route [a disordered route], such as one who entered inside by way of the roofs and upper chambers, and not by way of the Sanctuary. And although it could be learned by a kal va-chomer from one who enters the Sanctuary, nevertheless the verse took the trouble to write it.

[a disrupted route], such as entering inward through roofs and upper chambers rather than through the Sanctuary. Although it could be derived by a kal va-chomer from one who enters the Sanctuary, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble to write it.

Rava said

to Abaye:

But “bringing” is written with regard to it,

and the expression “bringing” indicates entry in the usual manner?!

Rather, Rava said:

Indeed, here it is speaking in accordance with the meaning of “bringing,” of bringing it in the usual manner. But it is speaking of a case in which, from the beginning of bringing it, he had in mind to bring it before and inside; in such a case, the blood is not invalidated by its entry into the Sanctuary. For

anything concerning which he had in mind

to bring it

before and inside is not invalidated in the Sanctuary

until he brings it before and inside.

And for such a case the verse “inside” is necessary, to teach us that entry before and inside also invalidates.

Rava raised a question: The bull of the communal error-offering and the goat of idolatry

of the community,

whose blood is placed in the Sanctuary, on the curtain and on the golden altar,

if one brought their blood before and inside, what is

the law—does it become invalid?

Do we say

that since it is stated in this verse, “And every sin-offering whose blood was brought

into the Sanctuary inside,”

we say only

wherever “into the Sanctuary” is written,

where there is invalidation for bringing the blood into the Sanctuary, such as the blood of an external sin-offering, which becomes invalid upon being brought into the Sanctuary,

we call it

also the invalidation of

“inside,”

so that the blood becomes invalid also upon being brought before and inside [as we established above]. But

wherever it is not written

with regard to it that it is invalidated by

“into the Sanctuary,”

such as with internal sin-offerings, whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary initially, to fulfill their mitzva in the Sanctuary,

we do not call

with regard to them the invalidation of

“inside,”

and their blood is not invalidated by being brought into the Holy of Holies.

Or perhaps,

since their place is only in the Sanctuary, before and inside

is not their place,

and it is considered bringing inside, and it becomes invalid?

And if you should say that it is not their place,

and it is considered bringing inside, you still have another question:

The bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

whose blood is first sprinkled before and inside, and afterward their blood is sprinkled in the Sanctuary, on the curtain and on the golden altar,

if he sprinkled their blood

first in accordance with their law

on the staves,

before and inside,

and brought them out to the Sanctuary,

if he again

brought them in

before and inside not in accordance with their law,

what is

the law—were they invalidated by bringing them back before and inside?

Do we say: It is their place,

for their blood is sprinkled before and inside, and it is not considered bringing inside even when he brought them out and again brought them in there?

Or perhaps, since it went out

to the Sanctuary,

it went out,

he has fulfilled his obligation, and thereafter before and inside is no longer considered their place; and if he brought them in again, it is considered bringing inside, which invalidates?!

And if you should say: Since it went out, it went out,

and they become invalid when he again brings them before and inside, nevertheless you still have another question: If, after he brought them out from the Holy of Holies to the Sanctuary, he did not bring them in again,