זבחים 92 — Soncino English Talmud

¹but not a burning piece of wood. Now if you think that he agrees with R. Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]? — In respect to what is unintentional he holds with R. Simeon; but in the matter of work which is not needed per se, he agrees with R. Judah. R. Huna said: If a drink-offering [of wine] was defiled, one must make a separate fire for it and burn it, for it is said, And every [sin-offering] . . . in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire. It was taught likewise: If blood, oil, meal-offerings or drink-offerings were defiled, a separate fire is made for them, and they are burnt. Samuel said to R. Hana of Baghdad: Bring me ten people and I will teach you in their presence: if drink-offerings were defiled, one makes a separate fire for them and burns them. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED ON TO A GARMENT, IT MUST BE WASHED. THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS ONLY OF [SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN, FOR IT IS SAID, IN A HOLY PLACE SHALL IT BE EATEN, YET BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SACRIFICES] NECESSITATE WASHING, FOR IT IS SAID, [THIS IS] THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING: THERE IS ONE LAW FOR ALL SIN-OFFERINGS. THE BLOOD OF A DISQUALIFIED SIN-OFFERING DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING, WHETHER IT HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS OR DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS. WHICH HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS? ONE [WHOSE BLOOD] WAS KEPT OVERNIGHT, OR WAS DEFILED, OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. WHICH DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS? ONE WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING IT] AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR WHOSE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED BY UNFIT PERSONS. GEMARA. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED etc. If there is one law for all sin-offerings, even a bird sin-offering too [should be included]. Why then was it taught: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering requires washing; therefore it states, This is [the law of the sin-offering]? — Said Resh Lakish on Bar Kappara's authority. Scripture saith, shall [the sin-offering] be slaughtered: thus the Writ speaks [only] of those which are slaughtered. Yet say rather that the Writ speaks [only] of those which are eaten, as it is written, ‘in a holy place shall it be eaten’, but not inner [sin-offerings]? — The Divine Law included [them by writing] ‘the law of’. If so, even a bird sin-offering too [is included]? — The Divine Law expressed a limitation in ‘this is’. And why do you prefer it thus? — It is logical to include animal inner sin-offerings, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north; [its blood is] received in a vessel;^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:For that is Biblically forbidden.
^ᵇnote:For though he intentionally extinguishes it, yet his work is not needed per se (v. n. 6.), and R. Simeon permits such.
^ᶜnote:E.g., when one carries out a corpse on Sabbath into the street. He does not really want the corpse in the street, but merely wants it out of the house. Every case of extinguishing except that of a wick to make it easier for subsequent relighting, falls within this category, since with this exception extinguishing is always negative. R. Judah forbids such, and R. Simeon permits it.
^ᵈnote:Hence he permits the unintentional extinguishing on the altar, but forbids the unintentional extinguishing of a burning piece of wood.
^ᵉnote:On the pavement of the Temple court; but it must not be taken out.
^ᶠnote:Lev. VI, 23. The accents are disregarded in this rendering. In Pes. 24b the verse is interpreted to mean that all sacrifices which must be eaten in the Temple court when fit, must be burnt in the same place if unfit; and the same applies to this wine.
^ᵍnote:Probably a proverbial expression, denoting emphasis and certainty.
^ʰnote:Lev. VI, 20: And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place.
^ⁱnote:Ibid. 19.
^ʲnote:The sin-offerings slaughtered in the inner sanctuary (hekal); these may not be eaten; v. Lev. IV, 1-12; 13-21.
^ᵏnote:Ibid. VI, 18; this is the superscription of the present passage containing this law of washing.
^ˡnote:Or sprinkling its blood.
^ᵐnote:‘This is’ is a limitation, implying, only what is enumerated in the section.
^ⁿnote:Ibid.
^ᵒnote:I.e., with shechitah, whereas a bird requires melikah.
^ᵖnote:One law for all.
^ᵠnote:Why apply the extension to inner sin-offerings and the limitation to birds, and not the reverse?
^ʳnote:Rashi reads, and Bah emends accordingly: it is slaughtered; it requires the north.

²[its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire. On the contrary, include rather the bird sin-offering, because it is an outer [offering], like itself, and is eaten, like itself? — Those [points of similarity] are more. R. Joseph said, Scripture saith, [The priest] . . . shall eat it: this one shall he eat, but not another; thus the Writ excluded of those which are eaten. Then what is the purpose of ‘this is’? — If not for ‘this is’ I would say that ‘shall eat it’ is the style of Scripture; hence this informs us [otherwise] Rabbah said, Scripture saith, and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]: hence the Writ speaks of those which are sprinkled. But surely we learnt: THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS OF [THE SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN? — This is what [the Tanna] means: Although Scripture speaks of [the sin-offerings] which are eaten, that is only in respect of scouring and rinsing. but in respect to washing, ‘and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]’ is written. If so, [instead of saying BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SIN-OFFERINGS]. he should say. Both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten? — Learn, both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten. If so, the bird sin-offering too [is included]? — The Divine Law expressed a limitation in ‘this is’. If so, an outer [sin-offering] too is not [included]? — The Divine Law expressed an extension in ‘the law of’. And why do you prefer it thus? — It is logical to include an animal sin-offering, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north; [its blood is] received in a vessel; [its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire. On the contrary, include the bird sin-offering, since it requires haza'ah, like itself? — Those [points of similarity] are more. R. Abin asked: What if one took the blood of a bird sin-offering within by its neck? Is its neck like a service vessel, and so it [the sacrifice] is disqualified; or perhaps it is like an animal's neck, while the Divine Law said, [And every sin-offering], whereof any of the blood [is brought into the tent of meeting . . . shall be burnt with fire], [implying] of its blood, but not of its flesh! — Come and hear: If it [the bird] struggled, entered within and then returned, it is fit. Hence, if, however, [the priest] took it in, it is disqualified. Then according to your reasoning, when it is taught in connection with most sacred sacrifices, If it struggled and entered the south and then returned, it is fit; [will you infer], but if he [the priest] carried it out [of the north into the south] it is disqualified? Rather, this is required where it went without; so there too, it is required where it went without. R. Abin asked: What if the blood [of the bird-offering] poured out on to the pavement, and one collected it? [Do we say that] the Divine Law merely did not demand a service vessel, and therefore one collects it and it is fit; or perhaps, in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, and therefore one collects it, but it is disqualified? — Said Raba, Come and hear: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering necessitates washing; therefore ‘this is’ is stated. Now, if you think that in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, I can infer this since it was disqualified in the air-space of a vessel! — Said R. Huna son of Joshua: [The text is necessary] where one presses the garment to its neck. Levi asked Rabbi: What if it spurted from one garment on to another garment? [Do we say,] It was rejected from the first garment in respect of washing, or not? — That is indeed a question, he replied. It does need washing, on either alternative: if one can collect [the blood] and it is fit [for sprinkling], then this is fit. While if it is collected and disqualified, I agree with R. Akiba who maintained [that] if it had a period of fitness and was then disqualified, its blood necessitates washing.^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ

^ˢnote:I.e , the emurim are burnt on the altar. The inner sin-offering has all these in common with the outer, whereas the bird sin-offering is unlike the outer in all these respects.
^ᵗnote:Lev. VI, 19.
^ᵘnote:‘It’ sing., implies that the passage speaks only of one of the sin-offerings which may be eaten; hence the bird sin-offering is excluded.
^ᵛnote:Since you already have a limitation in ‘it’.
^ʷnote:Not a limitation at all.
^ˣnote:Now that we know from ‘this is’ that a limitation is intended, ‘shall eat it’ teaches that the limitation concerns those which are eaten.
^ʸnote:Haza'ah, from which yazzeh is derived, is written only in connection with the inner sin-offerings, but not in connection with the outer sin-offerings, where zarak is written (both haza'ah and zerikah denote sprinkling, but the latter implies with more force than the former). Hence the Writ refers primarily to inner sin-offerings, and it is the outer sin-offerings which are included by ‘the law of’, implying one law for all.
^ᶻnote:Which shews that it refers primarily to outer sin-offerings.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Lev. VI, 21.
^ᵃᵇnote:Emended text (Sh.M.).
^ᵃᶜnote:The more obvious should be mentioned first, and according to Rabbah that is the inner sin-offering.
^ᵃᵈnote:If yazzeh shews that inner sin-offerings are primarily meant, the same should apply to a bird sin-offering, as this word is written in connection with it too.
^ᵃᵉnote:Sc. like the inner sin-offering.
^ᵃᶠnote:Into the hekal.
^ᵃᵍnote:Not in a service-vessel; but its neck was taken within and ipso facto the blood too. Is the sacrifice disqualified under the law forbidding the blood of an outer sin-offering to be taken within (v. Lev. VI, 23), or not?
^ᵃʰnote:Since no service vessel is required in its case, the blood being sprinkled straight from the throat, the throat itself may take the place of a service vessel.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid., 23.
^ᵃʲnote:Only when the blood alone is taken in, sc. in a service vessel, is the sacrifice disqualified, but not when it is taken in by means of the flesh.
^ᵃᵏnote:Into the hekal.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., its head was nipped near the hekal, and in its death struggles it entered therein.
^ᵃᵐnote:This assumes that only when it entered itself is it fit.
^ᵃⁿnote:The south side of the Temple court; it was killed in the north.
^ᵃᵒnote:Surely not, for no barrier divided the north from the south, to disqualify a sacrifice if its blood was carried from one into the other.
^ᵃᵖnote:Do not infer that if one carried it out it is unfit (that is obviously incorrect), but that if it struggled and went out of the Temple court, even if it returned, it is disqualified. Similarly, the bird remains fit only if it struggled and entered within; but if it struggled out of the Temple court, it is disqualified. No deduction, however, is to be made where one carried the bird within.
^ᵃᵠnote:Of the Temple court.
^ᵃʳnote:Lit, ‘make it need.’
^ᵃˢnote:The bird's throat counting as such.
^ᵃᵗnote:Just as when the blood of an animal-offering is spilt from the service vessel in which it was received.
^ᵃᵘnote:For sprinkling, for Scripture insisted that it must be sprinkled direct from the throat.
^ᵃᵛnote:As soon as the blood enters the airspace above the garment it is technically received in a vessel (a garment ranks as a utensil or vessel) and is disqualified for sprinkling. Consequently the garment need not be washed, for only blood fit for sprinkling necessitates washing. What need then is there of a text?
^ᵃʷnote:Lit., ‘vessel.’
^ᵃˣnote:So that the blood did not enter the air-space above the garment at all. Even then it need not be washed.
^ᵃʸnote:Emended text (Sh.M.).
^ᵃᶻnote:This refers to the blood of an animal sin-offering.
^ᵇᵃnote:When it fell on the first garment it became unfit for sprinkling, since it must be washed out, and therefore the second garment does not need washing.
^ᵇᵇnote:Although it should be washed out of the first garment, yet as long as this was not done, it is fit for sprinkling, just as though it had fallen on to the pavement; and so fit blood spurted on to the second garment.
^ᵇᶜnote:For further sprinkling.