זבחים 82 — parallel

82:1

Then let us [first] sprinkle within and then sprinkle without? — Since the sin-offering and the guilt-offering become unfit if their blood enters within, he could not give a general ruling. FOR R. AKIBA MAINTAINED etc. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: For example, to what may R. Akiba's ruling be compared? To a disciple who was mixing [wine] for his master with hot water, when he [the master] said to him, Mix me [a drink]. With what? he enquired. Are we not occupied with hot water? he replied; now then [I mean] with either hot or cold. So here too: consider: we are discussing the sin-offering: for what purpose then does the Divine Law write ‘sin-offering’? [To teach:] I do not mean a sin-offering [alone], but all sacrifices. To this R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: Consider: all sacrifices are included in respect of scouring and rinsing; why then does the Divine Law write ‘sin-offering’? Hence you may infer from this: only the sin-offering, but nothing else. This then can only be compared to a disciple who was mixing [a drink] for his master with either hot or cold water, when he said to him, Mix it for me with hot water only! — Rather, R. Akiba's reason is that ‘and every sin-offering’ is written where ‘[and] a sin-offering’ [would suffice]. For it was taught: ‘A sin-offering’: I know [this] only [of] a sin-offering; how do we know [it of] most sacred sacrifices [in general]? Because it says, ‘Every sin-offering’. How do we know [it of] lesser sacrifices? Because it says, ‘And every sin-offering’: this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: Even if you go on including all day, I will pay no heed to you. Rather: ‘a sin-offering’: I only know [this of] a private sin-offering: whence do we know [it of] a public sin-offering? Because it says, ‘Every sin-offering’. Again, I know it only of a male sin-offering: whence do I know [it of] a female sin-offering? Because it says. ‘And every’. It is just the reverse! — Rather, this is what he means: I only know [it of] a female sin-offering: whence do I know [it of] a male sin-offering? From the text, ‘And every sin-offering’. Now, does R. Jose the Galilean hold that this text comes for this purpose? Surely it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: The whole passage speaks only of the bullocks which were to be burnt and the he-goats which were to be burnt, and its purpose is [i] to teach that when they are disqualified they must be burnt before the Temple; and [ii] to impose a negative injunction against eating them. Said they to him: As to an [outer] sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost [sanctuary], whence do we know [that it is disqualified]? Said he to them: [From the verse,] Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within? — He argues on R. Akiba's contention. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS AND ONE OF THEM WENT WITHOUT, THE INSIDE ONE IS FIT. IF ONE OF THEM ENTERED WITHIN, R. JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARES THE OUTER ONE FIT; BUT THE SAGES DISQUALIFY IT. SAID R. JOSE THE GALILEAN: IF THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DISQUALIFIES, [VIZ.,] WITHOUT, YOU DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT AS WHAT WENT OUT; THEN THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DOES NOT DISQUALIFY, [VIZ.,] WITHIN, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT WE DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT AS WHAT ENTERED WITHIN? IF IT ENTERED WITHIN TO MAKE ATONEMENT, EVEN IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT MAKE ATONEMENT, IT IS UNFIT: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. R. SIMEON SAID: [IT IS NOT UNFIT] UNLESS HE MAKES ATONEMENT. R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE TOOK IT IN UNWITTINGLY, IT IS FIT. FOR ALL UNFIT BLOOD WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT THE ALTAR [I.E., SPRINKLED] THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, SAVE FOR UNCLEAN [BLOOD]. FOR THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THAT WHICH IS UNCLEAN, BUT DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR WHAT GOES OUT. GEMARA. It was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: It is a kal wa-homer: If the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies. [viz.,] without, the blood without does not disqualify that which is within; then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify. [viz.,] within, is it not logical that the blood within does not disqualify that which is without? Said they to him, Lo, it says, [And every sin-offering] whereof any of the blood is brought [into the tent of meeting . . . shall be burnt with fire]: [this implies,] even part of its blood. Said he to them: Then you now have a kal wa-homer in respect of [blood] that goes out; if the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify [viz.,] within, yet the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without; where intention does disqualify, [viz.,] without, it is not logical that the blood without disqualifies [the blood] within? Said they to him: Lo, it says, whereof [any of the blood] is brought [into etc.]: that which enters within disqualifies, but that which goes out does not disqualify. Now, let intention [to sprinkle] within disqualify, a fortiori: if though blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, yet intention without disqualifies; then seeing that the blood within does disqualify the blood without, is it not logical that intention within disqualifies? Lo, it says: On the third day: 34

—

82:2

[this teaches that the illegitimate intention must refer to] a place with a threefold function, [viz.,] in respect of blood, flesh, and emurim. Now, let an intention concerning without not disqualify [the sacrifice], a fortiori: if although the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without, an intention concerning within does not disqualify; then seeing that the blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, is it not logical that an intention concerning without shall not disqualify? Therefore Scripture writes ‘third’, which means after time; while piggul means without bounds. Flesh which goes without becomes unfit; that which enters within, is fit. Now, logically it might be unfit. For if though the blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, flesh which goes without becomes unfit; then since blood within does disqualify [blood] without, is it not logical that flesh which enters within shall be disqualified? Lo, it says, any of the blood: its blood [disqualifies], but not its flesh. Then in that case you can argue a fortiori: if though the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without, flesh that enters within is fit; then since blood without does not disqualify [blood] within, is it not logical that flesh that goes without is fit? Lo, it says. Therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field: once flesh passes without bounds, it is forbidden. Our Rabbis taught: [Behold the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary] within: I only know [it of] within; how do we know [it of] the hekal? Because it says, into the sanctuary within. Then let the ‘sanctuary’ be stated, but not ‘within’? — Said Raba: One comes and illumines the other, this being analogous to the case of toshab and sakir. For it was taught: Toshab means one [a Hebrew slave] acquired in perpetuity; sakir, one purchased for a period of [six] years. Now, let toshab be stated, but not sakir, and I would reason: if one acquired in perpetuity may not eat, how much more so one acquired only for a period of [six] years? Were it so, I would say: Toshab is one purchased for a limited period, but one acquired in perpetuity may eat. Therefore sakir comes and teaches the meaning of toshab, that the latter is one purchased in perpetuity, while the former is one purchased for a period of [six] years, and [neither] may eat. Said Abaye to him, As for there, it is well: They are two persons, and though Scripture could write, A [slave] whose ear was bored may not eat, and the other would be inferred a minori, yet Scripture [often] takes the trouble to write a thing which is derived a minori. But here, since it becomes unfit in the hekal, what business has the inner sanctuary? — Rather said Abaye: It is required only [where the priest takes] a circuitous route. Said Raba to him: But ‘entering’ is written in connection therewith? — Rather said Raba: Whatever [the priest] intends [to carry into] the innermost sanctuary does not become unfit in the hekal. Raba asked: What if [the priest] carried the blood of the congregational bullock for forgetfulness or the he-goat for idolatry into the innermost sanctuary? Do we say, [Scripture writes] ‘into the sanctuary within’; wherever we read ‘into the sanctuary’ we read ‘within’, and wherever we do not read ‘into the sanctuary’, we do not read ‘within’? Or perhaps, it is not in its place. Now, should you answer that it is not in its place, what if [the priest] sprinkled the blood of the bullock and that of the he-goat of the Day of Atonement on the slaves, then carried it out into the hekal, and then took it in again? Do we say, It is their place; or perhaps, once it has gone out, it has gone out? Should you answer, Once it has gone out, it has gone out: What if he sprinkled their blood on the veil,

—