Zevachim

SPRINKLING ROUND ABOUT,1 WAVING AND PRESENTING,2 (R. JUDAH MAINTAINED: THERE WERE NO MEAL-OFFERINGS AT THE BAMAH). PRIESTHOOD, SACRIFICIAL VESTMENTS, SERVICE VESSELS, A SWEET ODOUR,3 A LINE OF DEMARCATION FOR [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD,4 AND THE WASHING OF HANDS AND FEET.5 BUT TIME, NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT WERE ALIKE IN BOTH.6 GEMARA. What does OUTSIDE ITS APPOINTED PLACE mean? — Resh Lakish said: Outside the place which had been examined for it.7 Said R. Johanan to him: But surely the whole of Eretz Israel had been thus examined?8 Rather said R. Johanan: It means, e.g., that one slaughtered it within the wall of Jerusalem.9 But let him explain it [as meaning] that he slaughtered it without the wall, but not opposite the door [of the Hekal], for R. Adda b. Ahabah said: If one did not slaughter it opposite the door [of the Hekal], it is disqualified for it is said, And he shall slay it . . . and sprinkle [of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting]:10 As the sprinkling must be opposite the door, so must its slaughtering be opposite the door? And should you answer that he [R. Johanan] does not assimilate [slaughtering to sprinkling], surely it was stated: (If one did not slaughter it opposite the door, R. Johanan maintained that it was disqualified, [because it says], And he shall slay. . . and sprinkle. Resh Lakish said: It is fit, [because it says, and she shall be brought forth’] without the camp and he shall slay.11 And it was stated likewise:)12 If one did not burn it opposite the door, — R. Johanan said: It is disqualified; R. Oshaia said: It is fit. R. Johanan said, ‘It is disqualified’, [because it says,] and he shall burn . . . and he shall sprinkle.13 R. Oshaia said, ‘It is fit’, because Scripture saith, with her dung [pirshah] it shall be burnt: [that means, in] the place that she departs [poresheth] to death, there must she be burnt!14 — I will answer you: He [R. Johanan] proceeds to a climax:15 it goes without saying that [if he slaughters it] without the wall [and not opposite the door] [it is disqualified], because he removed it further [from the Sanctuary]. But even [if he slaughtered it] within the wall, so that he brought it nearer, and I might argue that it is fit, he informs us [that it is not]. The master said: ‘Said R. Johanan to him, But surely the whole of Eretz Israel had been thus examined’. Wherein do they differ? — One master holds that the Flood descended in Eretz Israel;16 while the other master holds that it did not descend [there]. R. Nahman b. Isaac observed: Both interpret the same text, [Viz.:] Son of man, say unto her: Thou art a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation.17 R. Johanan holds: Scripture speaks rhetorically:18 O Eretz Israel, how art thou not clean; did then the rain [flood] descend upon thee in the day of indignation? While Resh Lakish holds that it bears its plain sense: Eretz Israel, thou art not clean, [for] did not the rain descend upon thee in the day of indignation? Resh Lakish refuted R. Johanan: There were courtyards in Jerusalem built on a rock; beneath them was a hollow, on account of graves down in the depths.19 There they brought pregnant women, and women who had given birth, and there they reared their children for [the service of] the [Red] Heifer.20 And they brought oxen with doors on their backs;21 the children sat on them and carried stone goblets,22 which they filled [with water] and then returned to their place!23 — Said R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua: They were especially strict in the case of the [Red] Heifer. R. Johanan refuted Resh Lakish: On one occasion they found [human] bones in the Wood Chamber,24 and they desired to declare Jerusalem unclean. Whereupon R. Joshua rose to his feet and exclaimed: Is it not a shame and disgrace to us that we declare the city of our fathers unclean! Where are the dead of the Flood, and where are the dead of Nebuchadnezzar?25 Since he said, ‘Where are the dead of the Flood?’ he surely meant that they had not been there [in Jerusalem]? — Then on your reasoning, had there been none of the slain of Nebuchadnezzar [there]?26 Rather, they had been, but were removed; so here too27 they had been [in Eretz Israel], but were cleared away. But if they were removed, through the intention of eating it after time, operated at both. seven times, and he shall burn the heifer. This proximity denotes assimilation: the blood must be sprinkled and the flesh burnt in the same place. — Thus R. Johanan does assimilate two actions stated in proximity, and the same must apply to slaughtering and sprinkling. (Or, he states this explicitly, if the bracketed passage is retained in the text.) of the Hekal. unclean what was in the courtyard. Heifer. This was done when they left the courtyards and went to the Pool of Siloam to draw water for mixing with the ashes of the Red Heifer.