Menachot

so that if one sprinkling was omitted the whole is invalid.1 Our Rabbis taught: If the seven sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow were made under the name of some other [offering] or were not directed rightly,2 they are invalid; but as for those [sprinklings which must be performed] inside3 or [the sprinklings in the purification rites] of a leper,4 if they were made under the name of some other [offering], they are invalid, but if they were not rightly directed, they are valid. But has it not also been taught, with regard to the sprinklings of the blood of the Red Cow, that if they were sprinkled under the name of another they are invalid, whilst if they were not rightly directed they are still valid? — Said R. Hisda, This is no difficulty; for one5 [Baraitha] states the view of R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis. For it was taught: If a man that lacked atonement6 unwittingly entered the Temple court he is liable to bring a sin-offering, but if he entered deliberately he has incurred the penalty of kareth;7 and, needless to say, this is so of a tebul yom7 and others that were unclean. If a man that was clean overstepped the boundary8 and entered the Temple he has thereby incurred forty [stripes]; and if he entered within the veil9 or towards the front of the mercy-seat10 he has thereby incurred death [at the hands of heaven]. R. Judah says, If he entered into the Temple or within the veil he has thereby incurred forty [stripes], and if he entered towards the front of the mercy-seat he has thereby incurred death. Wherein do they differ? — In the interpretation of the following verse: And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, towards the front of the mercy-seat which is upon the ark; that he die not.11 The Rabbis12 maintain that [against entering] into the holy place there is the prohibition ‘that he come not’,13 and [against entering] within the veil or towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning ‘that he die not’; whereas R. Judah maintains that [against entering] into the holy place or within the veil there is the prohibition ‘that he come not’, and [against entering] towards the front of the mercy-seat there is the warning ‘that he die not’. What is the reason for this view of the Rabbis? — If the law is as R. Judah maintains, the Divine Law should only have stated ‘into the holy place’ and ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’, but not ‘within the veil’, for I should have said, If for entering the holy place one incurs stripes, how much more so for entering within the veil! Why then did the Divine Law also state ‘within the veil’? That you might infer that there is the penalty of death for it. And R. Judah, [how does he reply to this]? — Had the Divine Law only stated ‘into the holy place’ and not’ within the veil’ I might have thought that by the expression ‘into the holy place’ only ‘within the veil’ was meant, so that [against entering] into the Temple there is not even a prohibition! And the Rabbis? — You could not possibly have thought so, since the entire Temple is referred to as ‘the holy place’, as it is written, And the veil shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.14 And what is the reason for R. Judah's view? — If the law is as the Rabbis maintain, the Divine Law should only have stated ‘into the holy place within the veil’, but not ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’, for I should have said, If for entering within the veil one incurs death, how much more so for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat! Why then did the Divine Law also state ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’? That you might infer that only [for entering] towards the front of the mercy seat is there the penalty of death, whereas [for entering] within the veil there is only a prohibition. And the Rabbis, [how do they reply to this]? — Indeed it was unnecessary, and the only reason why the Divine Law stated ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’ in this verse was in order to exclude [from the prohibition] entering by the side.15 As it was taught by a Tanna in the school of R. Eliezer b. Jacob: The verse, Towards the front of the mercy-seat on the east,16 establishes the principle that wherever Scripture says ‘the front’ it means the east side. And R. Judah?17 — [He says,] The verse should then have only stated [here] ‘the front’, why does it also state ‘towards’? To teach that ‘towards’ must be interpreted with exactness.18 And the Rabbis? — [They say,] ‘Towards’ need not be interpreted exactly. Now19 since R. Judah maintains that the expression ‘towards the front of the mercy-seat’ must be interpreted with exactness, similarly he would hold that the expression ‘and he shall sprinkle towards the front’ must also be interpreted exactly;20 whilst the Rabbis hold that just as the one need not be interpreted exactly so the other need not be interpreted exactly.21 R. Joseph, however, demurred, saying, Then according to R. Judah, if ‘towards’ must be interpreted exactly, ‘upon’22 would also have to be interpreted exactly, would it not? And it would follow therefore that during the second Temple, inasmuch as there was no ark nor mercy-seat,23 no sprinklings were to be made [on the Day of Atonement]! — Rabbah b. ‘Ulla answered, It is written, And he shall make atonement for the holy sanctuary,24 that is, for the place that is sanctified for the holy sanctuary.25 Raba said, Both26 state the view of the Rabbis, [yet here is no contradiction] exactly as found in Zeb. 39a. The addition is also found in MS.M. and it reads as follows: I only know this of the seven sprinklings upon the veil, since whenever seven sprinklings are ordained it is established that the omission of one renders the whole invalid; but whence do I know this also of the four sprinklings upon the altar? Because Scripture says. So he shall do with this (Lev. IV, 20). The expression ‘the bullock’ (ibid.) includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement; the expression ‘as he did with the bullock’ (ibid.) includes the bullock offered by the anointed High Priest; and the expression ‘of the sin-offering’ (ibid.) includes the he-goats offered on account of the sin of idolatry. V. Rashi. the tent of meeting’. Holies; v. Lev. XIV, 16. offerings. Such a person still retains a slight measure of uncleanness. east side. Cf. Yoma 16b. view of the Rabbis. looking westward; e.g., by breaking through the north wall or the south wall of the Holy of Holies and entering thereby, or by entering through the door on the east but with the face looking either northward or southward. For such an entry one would not incur any penalty. side is meant, since for that purpose ‘the front’, without ‘towards’, would have been sufficient. Its true purpose is to teach that only for entering towards the front of the mercy-seat is the penalty of death at the hands of heaven incurred, but not for merely entering within the veil. R. Judah and the other that of the Rabbis. Holies, it is invalid. sprinkle with his finger upon the mercy-seat (Lev. XVI, 14); and therefore unless the sprinkling is made actually upon the mercy-seat it is invalid. Temple.