Zevachim 92a (צב.) — the Talmud in English

But they do not

extinguish

a coal of wood,

as extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law.

And if it enters your mind

that

Shmuel holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

then

even a coal of wood as well

should be permitted to extinguish. For Rabbi Shimon holds that “labor not required for its own purpose” is not prohibited by Torah law. According to him, it is impossible for extinguishing to be prohibited by Torah law except when the labor of extinguishing is “required for its own purpose,” and such a case can occur only when one extinguishes a fire burning in wood in order to turn the wood into charcoal by extinguishing the fire. But one who extinguishes it so that the public will not be harmed performs labor that is “not required for its own purpose,” and it is prohibited only by rabbinic decree. [The Gemara now assumes that “an unintended act” and “labor not required for its own purpose” are interdependent.]

And we answer:

With regard to “an unintended act,”

indeed

he holds

Shmuel

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon,

who permits it. But regarding

“labor not required for its own purpose,” he holds

Shmuel

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that it is prohibited by Torah law. For these two laws are not interdependent; therefore, he may not extinguish a coal of wood, since extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law.

Rav Huna said: The libations

that became impure are given a pyre of their own

on the floor of the Temple courtyard,

and he burns them, because it is stated: “And any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to effect atonement within the Sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire.” And we derive from here that all sacred offerings that are subject to “shall not be eaten” have the status of

“it shall be burned in fire within the Sanctuary,”

it shall be burned in fire,

meaning that they must be burned in the Temple courtyard.

It was taught likewise in a beraita: The blood, the oil, the meal-offerings, and the libations that became impure are given a pyre of their own, and he burns them.

Shmuel said

to Rav

Hana of Baghdad: Bring me ten

men

and I will say to you in their presence: Libations that became impure are given a pyre of their own, and he burns them.

We shall return to you, chapter “All That Is More Frequent.”

Mishna:

The blood of a sin-offering,

which was received in a service vessel but had not yet been sprinkled on the altar,

that splashed onto a garment—

it requires laundering.

As it is stated: “And whatever of its blood is sprinkled upon the garment ... shall be laundered in a holy place.”

Although the verse

under discussion

speaks only

of external sin-offerings, which are

eaten

by the priests, as it is

stated

in that passage that this sin-offering is to be “

eaten in a holy place,”

nevertheless,

both

sin-offerings

that are eaten and both

sin-offerings

that are internal

and are burned

require laundering

when their blood splashes onto a garment.

According to

what is stated

at the beginning of that passage: “This is

the law of the sin-offering,”

and we expound: There shall be

one law

for

all sin-offerings,

and from this we learn that the blood of every sin-offering, whether external or internal, that splashes onto a garment requires laundering!

A disqualified sin-offering—

its blood does not

require laundering.

This law applies

both when it had a period of fitness

for the sprinkling of its blood—that is, when it became disqualified only after the blood had been received properly and was fit for sprinkling—

and when it did not have a period of fitness,

when the blood was never fit for sprinkling.

What is

a disqualified sin-offering

that had a period of fitness?

One that remained overnight,

whose blood remained overnight and thereby became unfit for sprinkling;

one whose blood or flesh became impure,

after the blood had been received and before it was sprinkled, thereby disqualifying the blood for sprinkling, in accordance with the rule that “if there is no flesh, there is no blood”;

and one whose blood or flesh left

the Temple courtyard. All these disqualifications occurred after the blood had been received

properly! And what is

a disqualified sin-offering

that did not have a period of fitness

for sprinkling?

One slaughtered

with the intention to burn or eat

outside its designated time

or

outside its designated place, and one whose blood was received by disqualified persons (

and sprinkled; see Rashi and Tosafot)

its blood.

In all these cases, the sin-offering became disqualified before the blood was received properly and before it had a period of fitness for sprinkling.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

The blood of a sin-offering that splashed ... one that is eaten and one that is internal ... as it is stated: “The law of the sin-offering”—one law for all sin-offerings.

And we raise a difficulty:

And if

we derive the principle from the verse “the law of the sin-offering,” that there shall be

“

one law for all sin-offerings,”

as the Mishna expounds, then

even the bird sin-offering as well

should have its blood require laundering of garments, since it too must be included in the principle of one law for all sin-offerings!

As it is taught in a beraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin-offering should require laundering. The verse states: “This

is the law of the sin-offering.” “This” is an exclusion, and it excludes a bird sin-offering. Why, then, should the blood of a bird sin-offering not be included in the obligation to launder the garment by virtue of “one law”?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The verse states

in that passage:

“

It shall be slaughtered,”

to teach you that only

sin-offerings

that are slaughtered,

namely, animal sin-offerings whose procedure is slaughter,

are meant by the verse;

only their blood requires laundering of a garment, but not the blood of a bird sin-offering, whose procedure is not slaughter but melika.

But according to this derivation, that the verse speaks only of what is written in the passage, the Gemara asks:

If so,

say

that specifically the blood of external sin-offerings requires laundering of a garment, since

the verse speaks only of those that are eaten, as it is written: “It shall be eaten in a holy place.” But internal sin-offerings,

which are not eaten, and which the verse does not address,

should not

have their blood require laundering of garments?

The Gemara answers: The Merciful One

included

them by means of

“the law,”

teaching that there shall be one law for all sin-offerings!

But the Gemara raises another difficulty:

If so,

that the inclusion of one law for all sin-offerings also applies to what is not stated here in the passage,

even a bird sin-offering as well

should be included by means of “the law,” just as internal sin-offerings were included despite not being mentioned in the passage, since it is written there, “It shall be eaten in a holy place,” and internal sin-offerings are not eaten!?

And we answer: The Merciful One

excluded “this,”

to exclude a bird sin-offering.

But we ask:

What have you seen

that led you to include internal sin-offerings by means of “the law” and exclude a bird sin-offering by means of “this”? Say the opposite: exclude internal sin-offerings by means of “this” and include a bird sin-offering by means of one law for all sin-offerings!?

And we answer:

It is logical that an internal animal sin-offering should be included

in the law of laundering along with external sin-offerings that are eaten, since an internal sin-offering more closely resembles an external sin-offering than a bird sin-offering does in these matters:

It is an animal

like the external offering, and requires

slaughter

like it [unlike a bird, whose procedure is melika]; it requires

the north,

as its slaughter and the receipt of its blood are performed in the northern part of the courtyard [unlike a bird, whose melika may also be performed elsewhere].