Zevachim

[its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire.1 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:2 this one shall he eat, but not another; thus the Writ excluded of those which are eaten.3 Then what is the purpose of ‘this is’?4 — If not for ‘this is’ I would say that ‘shall eat it’ is the style of Scripture; 5 hence this informs us [otherwise]6 Rabbah said, Scripture saith, and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]: hence the Writ speaks of those which are sprinkled.7 But surely we learnt: THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS OF [THE SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN?8 — 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.9 but in respect to washing, ‘and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]’ is written.10 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?11 — Learn, both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten. If so, the bird sin-offering too [is included]?12 — 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?13 — Those [points of similarity] are more. R. Abin asked: What if one took the blood of a bird sin-offering within14 by its neck?15 Is its neck like a service vessel,16 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],17 [implying] of its blood, but not of its flesh!18 — Come and hear: If it [the bird] struggled, entered within19 and then returned,20 it is fit. Hence, if, however, [the priest] took it in, it is disqualified.21 Then according to your reasoning, when it is taught in connection with most sacred sacrifices, If it struggled and entered the south22 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?23 Rather, this is required where it went without; so there too, it is required where it went without. 24 R. Abin asked: What if the blood [of the bird-offering] poured out on to the pavement,25 and one collected it? [Do we say that] the Divine Law merely did not demand26 a service vessel,27 and therefore one collects it and it is fit;28 or perhaps, in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, and therefore one collects it, but it is disqualified?29 — 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!30 — Said R. Huna son of Joshua: [The text is necessary] where one presses the garment31 to its neck.32 Levi asked Rabbi:33 What if it spurted from one garment on to another garment?34 [Do we say,] It was rejected from the first garment in respect of washing,35 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.36 While if it is collected and disqualified,37 I agree with R. Akiba who maintained [that] if it had a period of fitness and was then disqualified, its blood necessitates washing. sin-offering is unlike the outer in all these respects. sin-offering is excluded. which are eaten. 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. word is written in connection with it too. the law forbidding the blood of an outer sin-offering to be taken within (v. Lev. VI, 23), or not? may take the place of a service vessel. by means of the flesh. into the other. 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. 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? second garment does not need washing. though it had fallen on to the pavement; and so fit blood spurted on to the second garment.