Zevachim 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

Rather, if he had intended

a place that is “triple,”

meaning one that, during the period when private altars were permitted, was suitable for three purposes:

1.

With regard to the blood—

a place suitable for sprinkling the blood.

2.

With regard to the meat—

a place suitable for eating the sacrificial meat.

3.

With regard to the sacrificial portions—

a place suitable for burning the sacrificial portions there.

And such a “triple” place exists only outside the Temple courtyard, during the period when private altars were permitted, and not inside the Sanctuary, where the meat is not eaten and the sacrificial portions are not burned.

The Gemara continues its discussion:

And should there not be a disqualifying thought

when, at the time of slaughter, one intends to sprinkle the blood

outside, by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if, in a place where blood that

enters

inside, the

blood

that

remains

outside is disqualified, a disqualifying thought does not apply

to one who intends to place the blood

inside.

In a place that did not disqualify

blood

that

went out

outside, the

blood

that

remained

inside, is it not all the more so that it should not be disqualified

there by a

thought

formed at the time of slaughter to place its blood

outside?!

Therefore,

the verse states: “third.”

This teaches us about the thought of

outside its designated time

, which disqualifies; and later in the verse it says

“pigul,”

teaching us the disqualification of a thought of

outside its designated place.

The Gemara continues and says:

Meat that goes outside

is

disqualified

[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].

Whereas meat

that enters inside

the Sanctuary is

fit.

That it should be subject to this judgment

, since one could have derived by a kal va-chomer that meat entering inside the Sanctuary

should

be

disqualified—

And if

outside the Temple courtyard,

in a place that did not disqualify blood that

went

outside

the courtyard,

the

blood

that

remained

inside

the courtyard, nevertheless

meat that goes outside is disqualified.

If so,

a place that disqualified the blood inside with regard to that outside—

meat that enters inside,

which is a place that disqualified blood entering inside with regard to blood remaining outside,

is it not all the more so that it should disqualify

there meat entering inside?!

The verse states

a limitation: “whose

blood

,” and we expound it:

its blood, but not its meat.

You might say: If so, let us now derive

a kal va-chomer with regard to meat that goes outside: And if

inside,

in a place that disqualified the blood inside with regard to that outside,

nevertheless

meat that enters inside

is

fit.

All the more so outside the Temple courtyard, which is

a place that did not disqualify blood that

goes

outside

with regard to the blood

that

remained

inside

: is it not obvious

that it is fit that meat going outside, beyond the courtyard, should be fit?

The answer is:

The verse states: “And meat in the field, torn, you shall not eat,”

and we expound this verse as follows:

Once meat has gone beyond its boundary,

it is

forbidden.

The meaning of the word “torn” is that meat that goes beyond its boundary is likewise considered forbidden to eat, just as an animal torn by a predator is forbidden to eat.

The Sages taught

: Moses our teacher confronted Aaron and his sons, asking why they had burned the sin-offering on the eighth day of the inauguration, and said to them: “Indeed, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary

inside.”

The Sages derived from here:

I have derived

from here the disqualification

only

of a sin-offering whose blood was brought inward, into the Holy of Holies, that is,

“inside.”

But with regard to a sin-offering whose blood was brought into the

Sanctuary, how

do we know that it too is disqualified?

The verse states: “into the Sanctuary,”

and the Sanctuary too is called “holy.”

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Let

the verse

say “holy,”

and the Sanctuary would be included,

and let it not say “inside”;

then we would know by a kal va-chomer that the innermost area, before and within, 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” refers to the innermost area, before and within, and we would not know that it is disqualified even in the Sanctuary. But now that it says both “holy” and “inside,”

one comes and teaches about the other,

such that “holy” refers to the Sanctuary, while “inside” refers to the innermost area, before and within.

It is analogous to 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 a permanent possession

until the Jubilee year.

“Hired laborer”

is a Hebrew slave who is

acquired as a possession

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 may 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 a permanent possession, may not eat

teruma, then a “hired laborer,” who is

acquired as a possession for a limited number of years, certainly

may not eat it?

The answer is:

If so,

if the verse had said only “resident,”

I would have said: “Resident” refers to one acquired as a possession for a limited number of years. But

one who is

acquired as a permanent possession may eat

teruma. Therefore,

the verse comes

and says

“hired laborer,” and teaches about “resident,”

to inform us

that this one,

“resident,” is

acquired as a permanent possession, while this one,

“hired laborer,” is

acquired as a possession for a limited number of years. And neither may eat

—neither the one acquired for a limited number of years nor the one acquired as a permanent possession.

Abaye said to him

: How can one compare “resident and hired laborer,” which are stated with regard to teruma, with “holy and inside,” which are stated with regard to blood brought inward?

Granted, there

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

they are two separate entities,

and the prohibition concerning one has no bearing on the prohibition concerning the other. Therefore, both had to be written, so that one could come and teach about the other.

There,

although the verse could have written

explicitly,

“A pierced slave

may not eat,”

and the other one,

the one sold for six years,

would be derived by a kal va-chomer

as one who may not eat teruma, and it would not have been necessary to write both “resident” and “hired laborer,” this is not difficult for us, since it can be answered:

When a matter can be derived by a kal va-chomer, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble to write it.

But here,

with regard to the Sanctuary and the innermost area, the difficulty remains: Why did the verse state both? It should have explicitly specified the Sanctuary, and the innermost area would have been included in it as well.

If so, there is a substantial difficulty:

Since the blood is disqualified

already upon entering

the Sanctuary,

what need is there for the disqualification of bringing it

into the innermost area?

It is impossible to enter the innermost area without first passing through the Sanctuary and becoming disqualified there; if so, the disqualification of the innermost area is superfluous.

Rather, Abaye said: “Inside” is necessary

to be written

only for

one who enters in an irregular manner, by

a distorted route

[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 “brought” is written with regard to it,

and the language of being brought indicates entry in the ordinary manner!?

Rather, Rava said

: Indeed, here it is speaking in accordance with the meaning of “brought”—of bringing it in the ordinary manner. However, it refers to a case in which, from the beginning of its being brought, he intended to bring it into the innermost area. In such a case, the blood is not disqualified by its entry into the Sanctuary. For

anything about which he intended

to bring it

into the innermost area is not disqualified in the Sanctuary

until he brings it into the innermost area.

And for such a case the verse “inside” is necessary, to teach us that entry into the innermost area also disqualifies.

Rava raises a question: With regard to the bull for an error in a matter decided by the community and the communal goat for idolatry

,

,

whose blood is placed in the Sanctuary, on the Curtain and on the golden Altar,

if he brought their blood into the innermost area, what is

the law? Is it disqualified?

Do we say

: Since this verse states, “And any sin-offering whose blood was brought

into the Sanctuary, inside,”

we say that

wherever “into the Sanctuary” is written,

meaning that there is a disqualification for bringing the blood into the Sanctuary, such as the blood of an external sin-offering, which is disqualified upon being brought into the Sanctuary,

we call it

also the disqualification of

“inside,”

meaning that the blood is likewise disqualified when brought into the innermost area [as we established above]. But

wherever it is not written

that there is a disqualification of

“into the Sanctuary,”

such as in the case of internal sin-offerings, whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary ab initio in fulfillment of their mitzva in the Sanctuary,

we do not call

it the disqualification of

“inside,”

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

Or perhaps

: Since their proper place is only in the Sanctuary, the innermost area

is not their place,

and it is considered entry inward and is disqualified?

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

and it is considered entry inward, you still have this question:

With regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

whose blood is first sprinkled in the innermost area, 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 procedure

on the staves,

in the innermost area,

and brought them out into the Sanctuary,

if he then

brought them back in

to the innermost area not in accordance with their procedure,

what is

the law? Were they disqualified by being returned to the innermost area?

Do we say that it is their proper place,

since their blood is sprinkled there, and it is not considered entry inward even when he brought them out and then brought them back in there?

Or perhaps, since it went out

into the Sanctuary,

it went out,

meaning that he fulfilled his obligation, and thereafter the innermost area is no longer considered their proper place; and if he brought them back in, it is considered entry into the innermost area, which disqualifies them!?

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

and they become disqualified when he brings them back into the innermost area, the question still remains: If, after he brought them out of the Holy of Holies into the Sanctuary, he did not bring them back in,