Zevachim 92a — the Talmud in English

But not

extinguish

a coal of wood,

for its extinguishing is forbidden by Torah law.

And if it enters your mind

that

Samuel holds like Rabbi Shimon,

then

even a coal of wood, also,

should be permitted to extinguish? For Rabbi Shimon holds that “labor that does not require its own purpose” is not forbidden by Torah law, and according to him it is impossible for extinguishing to be forbidden by Torah law except in extinguishing labor that “requires its own purpose”; and such labor is possible only when one extinguishes the fire burning in wood with the intention of making charcoal from it, by extinguishing the fire. But one who extinguishes with the intention that the public should not be harmed performs labor that “does not require its own purpose,” and there is no prohibition in it except by rabbinic law [and the Gemara now held that “an act not intended” and “labor that does not require its own purpose” depend on one another].

And we answer:

With regard to “an act not intended,”

indeed

Samuel holds

Samuel

like Rabbi Shimon,

that it is permitted. But with regard to

“labor that does not require its own purpose,” he holds

Samuel

like Rabbi Yehuda,

that it is forbidden by Torah law. For these two laws do not depend on one another; therefore, he may not extinguish a coal of wood, since it is forbidden to extinguish it by Torah law.

Rav Huna said: Libations

that became impure—one makes for them a separate pyre

on the floor of the Temple courtyard,

and burns them, because it is stated, "

all sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, it shall not be eaten; in fire shall it be burned," and we derive from here regarding all sacred offerings that are “not to be eaten” that their law is

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

that is, their burning shall be in the Temple courtyard.

It was taught likewise: The blood, the oil, the meal-offerings, and the libations that became impure—one makes for them a separate pyre and burns them.

Samuel said to

Rav

Hana of Baghdad: Bring me ten

men

and I will say to you in their presence: Libations that became impure—one makes for them a separate pyre and 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, and had not yet been sprinkled on the altar,

which splashed onto a garment—

it requires laundering.

As it is stated: “And that of whose blood is sprinkled upon the garment ... you shall launder in a holy place.”

Even though this verse

here

speaks only

of external sin-offerings, which are

eaten

by the priests, for it is

stated

in that passage that this sin-offering

“shall be eaten in a holy place,”

nevertheless,

both

sin-offerings

that are eaten and both

sin-offerings

that are internal,

which are burned,

require laundering

when their blood splashes onto a garment.

In accordance with

what is stated

at the beginning of that passage: “This is

the law of the sin-offering,”

and we expound:

one law

shall

be for all sin-offerings,

and from here we have learned that all the blood of sin-offerings, external or internal, which splashes onto a garment, requires laundering!

An invalid sin-offering—

its blood does not

require laundering.

And this law applies

both when it had a time of fitness

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

and when it did not have a time of fitness,

for the blood had never been fit for sprinkling.

Which is

an invalid sin-offering

that had a time of fitness?

One that remained overnight,

whose blood of the sin-offering remained overnight and became invalid for sprinkling,

and one that became impure,

whose blood or flesh became impure after the blood was received and before it was sprinkled, and through this the blood became invalid for sprinkling [according to the rule that “if there is no flesh, there is no blood”],

and one whose

blood or flesh went outside the Temple courtyard. And all these invalidations occurred after the blood had been received validly!

And which is

an invalid sin-offering

that did not have a time of fitness

for sprinkling?

One that was slaughtered

with the thought of burning or eating

outside its designated time

or

outside its designated place, and one in whose case disqualified persons received (and sprinkled) [see Rashi and Tosafot]

and sprinkled; see Rashi and Tosafot)

its blood.

In all these cases the sin-offering became invalid before the blood was received validly, and before it had a time of fitness for sprinkling.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we raise an objection:

And if

we expound the rule 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 its blood require laundering of garments, since it too needs to be included by “one law for all sin-offerings”!

Why, then, was it taught: “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 a limitation, and excludes the bird sin-offering. And why should the blood of the bird sin-offering not be included for laundering of the garment by “one law”?

And we resolve:

Resh Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The verse says

in that passage:

“It shall be slaughtered,”

to tell you that only

in

sin-offerings

that are slaughtered,

in the animal sin-offering whose law is slaughter,

does the verse speak,

so that only their blood requires laundering of a garment, but not the blood of a bird sin-offering, which is not slaughtered but pinched.

But according to this exposition, that the verse speaks only of what is written in the passage, the Gemara raises the following objection:

If so,

let us say

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

of those that are eaten does the verse speak, as it is written, “It shall be eaten in a holy place.” But the internal ones,

which are not eaten, and with regard to which the verse does not deal, let us say

not

require laundering of garments for their blood?

And the Gemara answers:

The Merciful One included

from

“law,”

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

But the Gemara returns and raises an objection:

If so,

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

even the bird sin-offering as well

should be included from “the law,” just as the internal ones were included, despite the fact that they are not stated in the passage, since it is written there, “It shall be eaten in a holy place,” whereas internal sin-offerings are not eaten!?

And we resolve:

The Merciful One limited it with “this,”

to exclude the bird sin-offering.

But we ask:

What did you see

that led you to include the internal ones from “the law” and exclude the bird from “this”? Say the reverse: let us exclude the internal ones by “this” and include the bird by one law for all sin-offerings!?

And we resolve:

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

in the law of laundering like the external sin-offerings that are eaten, since the internal sin-offering resembles the external sin-offering more than the bird sin-offering resembles it, in the following matters:

It is an animal

like it, and requires

slaughter

like it [unlike a bird, which is pinched], and requires

the north,

for its slaughter and the reception of its blood are performed in the north of the courtyard [unlike a bird, whose pinching may also be performed on another side].