There are varying opinions on several issues relating to blood that is meant to be brought on outer altar that is disqualified if it was brought into the sanctuary – from what verse is it derived from, does it apply to all sacrifices, does it apply only if one sprinkled the blood there and not just by walking inside with the blood? If blood of one sin offering is placed in two cups and one is brought outside or one is brought into the sanctuary, is the other cup (that is still in the azara) disqualified?
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 82
וְנִיתֵּיב לְפָנִים וַהֲדַר נִיתֵּיב לַחוּץ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּכִי נִכְנַס דָּמָן פְּסוּלִין, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.
And if you suggest that the priest should first place blood from the mixture inside the Sanctuary and again place blood outside, on the altar, although this resolution is applicable to most offerings whose blood is placed outside, nevertheless the tanna of the mishna chose to omit this case. The reason is that since there are a sin offering and a guilt offering, concerning which, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, when their blood enters the Sanctuary they are disqualified from being placed on the external altar, the tanna could not teach this halakha categorically. In other words, as the tanna could not issue a categorical ruling that applies to all types of offerings, he omitted the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer here.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בְּחַמִּין, וְאָמַר לוֹ: מְזוֹג לִי. אָמַר לוֹ: בַּמֶּה? אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא בְּחַמִּין אָנוּ עֲסוּקִין עַכְשָׁיו?! בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva would say: Any blood that is to be presented outside that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified. The Gemara discusses the source for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling. The verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). How does Rabbi Akiva apply this halakha to all offerings whose blood is presented on the external altar? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Hear a parable: To what is this matter comparable? To a student who mixed wine with hot water for his teacher. And the teacher said to him: Mix another drink for me. The student said to him: With what should I mix the wine, hot or cold water? The teacher said to him: Aren’t we dealing with hot water? Now that I requested that you mix me another cup, I mean that you should mix it either in hot water or in cold. Otherwise, the teacher would not have needed to say anything.
הָכָא נָמֵי – מִכְּדִי בְּחַטָּאת עָסְקִינַן וְאָתֵי, ״חַטָּאת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו חַטָּאת קָאָמֵינָא לַהּ, אֶלָּא כׇּל קָדָשִׁים.
Here too, since we have been dealing with a sin offering in that passage (see Leviticus 6:17–22), why do I need the term “sin offering” that the Merciful One writes in this verse? Even without this term it is clear that the Torah is referring to a sin offering. Rather, as in the parable, the Torah mentions a sin offering to teach: I do not say this halakha with regard to a sin offering alone, i.e., that only the blood of a sin offering is disqualified when it is brought inside the Sanctuary, but the blood of all sacrificial animals is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִכְּדֵי אִיתְרַבּוֹ כׇּל קָדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעִנְיַן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, ״חַטָּאת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חַטָּאת אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this explanation: Accordingly, one should reach the opposite conclusion: Since all sacrificial animals that are sacrificed on the altar are included in this passage of the Torah with regard to scouring and rinsing, as derived by the Sages, despite the fact that this requirement is stated in connection with a sin offering (see Leviticus 6:21), it is already established that this chapter is speaking of all offerings. Consequently, why do I need the term “sin offering” that the Merciful One writes with regard to the matter of blood that entered the Sanctuary? Learn from the verse that in the case of a sin offering whose blood entered the Sanctuary, yes, it is disqualified, but if the blood of any other offering entered the Sanctuary, no, it is not disqualified.
וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן, אָמַר לוֹ: אַל תִּמְזוֹג לִי אֶלָּא חַמִּין!
Rav Huna addresses Shmuel’s parable: And if you wish to provide a comparison, it is comparable only to a student who initially mixed wine for his teacher with both hot and cold water, and his teacher then said to him: Mix wine for me only with hot water.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵ״חַטָּאת״ ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״; דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חַטָּאת״. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Huna continues: Rather, the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva is from the fact that the verse does not state simply: “Sin offering,” but states: “Any sin offering”; this serves to include all other offerings. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). I have derived that this halakha applies only with regard to a sin offering; from where is it derived that it also applies to offerings of the most sacred order? The verse states: “Any sin offering.” And from where is it derived that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: “And any sin offering.” This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: אֲפִילּוּ אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לְךָ אֶלָּא חַטָּאת. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטַּאת יָחִיד, חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חַטָּאת״. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת זָכָר, חַטָּאת נְקֵבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל״.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to Rabbi Akiva: Even if you include offerings in this manner from the verse all day long, I will not listen to you. Rather, this verse is referring to a sin offering alone, and it should be expounded as follows: The verse states: “Sin offering”; I have derived only that this halakha applies to the sin offering of an individual. From where is it derived that the same applies to a communal sin offering? The verse states: “Any sin offering.” And one can still say: I have derived only that this halakha applies to a male sin offering; from where is it derived that the same applies to a female sin offering? The verse states: “And any sin offering.”
כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת נְקֵבָה, חַטָּאת זָכָר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״.
The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that the application of this halakha to a male sin offering is more obvious than to a female sin offering? Isn’t it the opposite [kelapei layya], as the standard sin offering of an individual is a female? Rather, this is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is saying: One can still ask: I have derived only that this halakha applies to a female sin offering; from where is it derived that the same applies to a male sin offering? The verse states: “And any sin offering.”
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: הַאי קְרָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: (לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ) כׇּל הָעִנְיָן כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים –
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold that this verse comes for this purpose, to teach the halakha of sin offerings whose blood was brought inside the Sanctuary? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: As we have found the entire matter that is stated in the verse: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 6:23), is not stated with regard to a standard sin offering improperly brought inside the Sanctuary; rather, it speaks only about bulls that are burned and goats that are burned.
לִשְׂרוֹף פְּסוּלֵיהֶן אַבֵּית הַבִּירָה, וְלַעֲמוֹד בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili elaborates: These are unique sin offerings, and the Torah states that their blood should be brought inside the Sanctuary. The verse is stated with regard to these sin offerings both in order to command the Jewish people to burn their disqualified ones in the Temple and in order to establish a prohibition with regard to their consumption.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – מִנַּיִן? אָמַר לָהֶם: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא״.
The baraita continues: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If you expound the verse in this fashion, then from where is it derived that a standard sin offering whose blood entered the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, must be burned? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to them that it is derived from the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). This indicates that had the sin offering referred to in the verse been brought inside the Sanctuary, it should have been burned. In any event, with regard to the issue at hand, since Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the verse from Leviticus 6:23 in this manner, how can he interpret it differently in his dispute with Rabbi Akiva?
לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili spoke according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, i.e., although Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the verse in a different manner, according to Rabbi Akiva’s explanation it should be understood as referring only to a sin offering, not to other offerings.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָה בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, יָצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחוּץ – הַפְּנִימִי כָּשֵׁר. נִכְנַס אֶחָד מֵהֶם לִפְנִים – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַכְשִׁיר בַּחִיצוֹן, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.
MISHNA: In the case of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar whose blood the priest collected in two cups, if one of them left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, the cup that remained inside the courtyard is fit to be presented. If one of the cups entered inside the Sanctuary and was thereby disqualified, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deems the blood in the cup that remained outside the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, fit to be presented, and the Rabbis deem it disqualified from being presented.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ – לֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הַמְשׁוּיָּר כַּיּוֹצֵא, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַמְשׁוּיָּר כַּנִּכְנָס?!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said in support of his opinion: The halakha is that if one slaughters an offering with the intent that its blood be presented outside of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified, but if his intention was that the blood be presented inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not disqualified. Just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, and yet when some of the blood is taken there it does not render the status of the remaining blood disqualified like that of blood that leaves the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, is it not logical that we will not deem the status of the remaining blood like that of blood that entered the Sanctuary?
נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כִּפֵּר – פָּסוּל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הִכְנִיס שׁוֹגֵג – כָּשֵׁר.
The mishna continues: If all of the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, despite the fact that the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood to atone, the offering is disqualified; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is disqualified only when he atones and sprinkles the blood in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit to be presented.
כָּל הַדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא הִרְצָה הַצִּיץ אֶלָּא עַל הַטָּמֵא. שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא, וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא.
With regard to all the blood disqualified for presentation that was placed on the altar, the frontplate effects acceptance only for offerings sacrificed that are ritually impure. Although it is written with regard to the frontplate worn on the forehead of the High Priest: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters” (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is because the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed that are ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for offerings that leave the courtyard.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בַּחוּץ – לֹא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים; מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בִּפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסוֹל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ?
GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Rabbis as to whether the blood of a sin offering in a second cup is disqualified if the blood in the first cup entered the Sanctuary, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: This is an a fortiori inference: And just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, and yet that blood that was taken outside does not disqualify the blood that is still inside the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, is it not logical that the blood that was taken inside will not disqualify the blood that is still outside the Sanctuary?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ״ – אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת דָּמָהּ.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that even if part of its blood is brought inside the Sanctuary, the sin offering is disqualified.
אָמַר לָהֶם, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַיּוֹצֵא מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בִּפְנִים – פּוֹסֵל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ; מְקוֹם שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים?
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to the Rabbis: If you expound the verse in that manner, then from now one can derive an a fortiori inference with regard to the blood that leaves the courtyard: And just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, the blood that was taken inside disqualifies the blood that is still outside, i.e., in the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, is it not logical that the blood that was taken outside will disqualify the blood that is still inside the courtyard? Why do the Rabbis deem this blood fit?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא״ – הַנִּכְנָס פּוֹסֵל וְאֵין הַיּוֹצֵא פּוֹסֵל.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili in response: But the verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). This teaches that only blood that enters the Sanctuary disqualifies the blood in the courtyard, but the blood that leaves the courtyard does not disqualify the blood in the courtyard.
וּתְהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה בִּפְנִים פּוֹסֶלֶת מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ, מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים?
In light of this discussion, the Gemara asks: And let intent to present the blood inside the Sanctuary disqualify the offering based on an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went outside does not disqualify the rest of the blood that is inside the courtyard, and yet intent to present the blood in this place disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the courtyard, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, is it not logical that intent to present the blood in this place will disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the courtyard?
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי״ –
The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: “And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7), and the Sages expounded this verse with regard to the halakha of intent while slaughtering an offering.
מָקוֹם שֶׁיְּהֵא מְשׁוּלָּשׁ בְּדָם, בְּבָשָׂר, בְּאֵימוּרִים.
This verse teaches that the place where improper intent disqualifies the offering must be triply functional: For the presenting of the blood, for the eating of the meat, and for the burning of the sacrificial portions of the offering that are consumed on the altar. In other words, it must be outside its designated place with regard to all three of these issues. Consequently, intent to present the blood in the Sanctuary does not disqualify the blood.
וְלֹא תְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים, מְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבְּפָנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא פּוֹסֵל מַחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ?
The Gemara suggests the opposite: And if so, let intent to present the blood outside the Sanctuary not disqualify the offering based on an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside in the courtyard, and yet intent to present the blood inside the Sanctuary does not disqualify the offering, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the rest of the blood that is inside the courtyard, is it not logical that intent to present the blood outside the courtyard does not disqualify the offering?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שְׁלִישִׁי״ – חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, ״פִּגּוּל״ – חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted,” and the Sages interpreted this verse as follows: “On the third day” is referring to intent to perform its rites beyond its designated time; “it is piggul” is referring to intent to perform its rites outside its designated area.
בָּשָׂר [הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ – פָּסוּל], הַנִּכְנָס לִפְנִים – כָּשֵׁר.
A baraita teaches: The meat of offerings that left its designated area and was taken to a place that is outside its designated area for consumption, which is outside the wall of Jerusalem in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity and outside the wall of the Temple courtyard in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, is disqualified from being eaten. By contrast, meat of offerings that entered inside the Sanctuary is not disqualified and remains fit to be eaten.
שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדִּין שֶׁפָּסוּל: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ פָּסוּל, מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס בִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל?
One might have thought that it should be derived based on a logical inference that this meat is disqualified, as follows: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the rest of the blood that remained inside the courtyard, yet meat that leaves and is taken outside the courtyard is disqualified, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside the Sanctuary, is it not right that meat that enters the Sanctuary should be disqualified?
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מִדָּמָהּ״ – דָּמָהּ וְלֹא (בשר) [בְּשָׂרָהּ].
The baraita explains that one does not derive this inference, as the verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23), which indicates that the blood of an offering that is brought inside is disqualified, but not meat that enters the Sanctuary.
קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס לְפָנִים כָּשֵׁר; מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁכָּשֵׁר?!
The baraita continues: From now, as it has been established that the meat of offerings that is brought inside the Sanctuary is not disqualified, one can suggest an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the blood that remained outside in the courtyard, and yet meat that enters the Sanctuary is fit, therefore, in a place where the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the blood that is inside the courtyard, is it not logical that meat that left and was taken outside the courtyard should be fit?
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא בָּשָׂר חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתוֹ, נֶאֱסָר.
The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field” (Exodus 22:30). The apparently superfluous term “in the field” teaches a general halakha: Once meat has left and been removed outside of its boundary, i.e., the area in which it is permitted to consume it, it has become prohibited.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּנִימָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פְּנִימָה, הֵיכָל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״.
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the blood of a sin offering that entered the Sanctuary. The Sages taught: It is stated that when Moses questioned Aaron as to why a sin offering was not consumed, he said: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within” (Leviticus 10:18). This indicates that had the blood been brought within, Moses would have understood that the offering would have been disqualified and rendered prohibited for consumption. The baraita comments: I have derived only that the offering is disqualified if the blood is brought within, i.e., into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the same applies if it was merely brought into the Sanctuary? The verse states: “Into the sacred place within,” and this sacred place is the Sanctuary.
וְיֹאמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״, וְאַל וְיֹאמַר ״פְּנִימָה״! אָמַר רָבָא: בָּא זֶה וְלִימֵּד עַל זֶה; מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״.
The Gemara questions this derivation: And let the verse state only “sacred place,” and it need not state “within.” If blood that entered the Sanctuary is already disqualified, this halakha certainly applies if it was brought farther inside, to the Holy of Holies. Rava says: This verse comes and teaches about that verse. In other words, had the verse stated only “sacred place,” it would have been interpreted as referring to the Holy of Holies. The addition of “within” indicates that this sacred place is the Sanctuary, while the term “within” is referring to the Holy of Holies. The Gemara cites a similar example: This is just as it is with regard to a tenant and a hired worker.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, ״שָׂכִיר״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים.
As it is taught in a baraita concerning teruma: The verse states: “A tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated” (Leviticus 22:10). “A tenant”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been acquired as a permanent acquisition, i.e., one who said he wishes to stay with his master. This slave has his ear pierced and he remains with his master until the Jubilee Year. “A hired worker”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been acquired for an acquisition of six years, the standard period of servitude for a Hebrew slave.
יֹאמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ וְאַל יֹאמַר ״שָׂכִיר״, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
The baraita asks: Let the verse say “tenant” and let it not say “hired worker,” and I would say: If one who is acquired as a permanent acquisition does not partake of his master’s, i.e., the priest’s, teruma, as despite his status as a slave he is not considered his master’s property, is it not all the more so logical that one who is acquired for an acquisition of six years should not be permitted to partake of teruma?
אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים, אֲבָל קְנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם יְהֵא אוֹכֵל; בָּא ״שָׂכִיר״ וְלִימֵּד עַל ״תּוֹשָׁב״, שֶׁזֶּה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וְזֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים – וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל.
The baraita answers: If so, that the verse were stated in this manner, I would say: “A tenant”; this is one who was acquired for an acquisition of six years, as the term itself is ambiguous, but one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may partake of teruma. Therefore, the term “hired worker,” which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, comes and teaches about the meaning of the term “tenant,” that this one was acquired as a permanent acquisition and that one was acquired for an acquisition of six years, and both this one and that one may not partake of teruma. Similar reasoning applies in the above case concerning the terms “sacred place” and “within.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם – תְּרֵי גוּפֵי נִינְהוּ; וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לִקְרָא לְמִכְתַּב ״נִרְצָע לֹא יֹאכַל״, וְאִידַּךְ אָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר – מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא. אֶלָּא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן (דְּאִיכָּא) דְּאִיפְּסֵל בְּהֵיכָל, (הָכָא) לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים מַאי בָּעֵי?
Abaye said to Rava: Are these cases comparable? Granted, there, the tenant and the hired worker are two bodies. And this is significant, as even though the verse could have written explicitly that a pierced tenant may not partake of teruma, from which the halakha of a Hebrew slave for six years could have been inferred, and the other case, that of a slave for six years, is therefore a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, it need not be stated explicitly. Nevertheless, there is a principle: At times, with regard to a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly. But here, the same blood enters the Holy of Holies via the Sanctuary, and once it is disqualified in the Sanctuary, why is it necessary for the verse to teach that this blood is disqualified when it enters the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies?
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְדֶרֶךְ מְשׁוּפָּשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא הֲבָאָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – לָא מִיפְּסֵל בְּהֵיכָל.
Rather, Abaye says: This mention of “within” is necessary only for a case where the blood entered the Holy of Holies not via the Sanctuary but in a roundabout manner, e.g., from the roof or the loft of the Holy of Holies, without having entered the Sanctuary. Rava said to Abaye: But an expression of bringing is written in the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within,” which indicates a standard manner of bringing it into the Holy of Holies. Rather, Rava says: In any circumstance where the priest intended to bring the blood inside the innermost sanctum, it is not disqualified when it is only in the Sanctuary, and therefore it was necessary for the verse to teach both disqualifications.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁהִכְנִיס דָּמָן לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – מַהוּ?
§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goat for a sin of idol worship, whose blood should be presented in the Sanctuary, if it occurred that the priest brought their blood into the innermost sanctum, what is the halakha?
מִי אָמְרִינַן: ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״ – כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינַן ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ קָרֵינַן לֵיהּ ״פְּנִימָה״, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָרֵינַן ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ לָא קָרֵינַן ״פְּנִימָה״; אוֹ דִלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן הוּא?
Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the verse states: “Into the sacred place within” (Leviticus 10:18) as a single phrase, and therefore anywhere that we read a prohibition against bringing the blood “into the sacred place,” i.e., that the blood is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary, we also read a prohibition against bringing the blood “within,” i.e., that it is likewise disqualified when it is brought into the Holy of Holies; but anywhere that we do not read a prohibition against bringing the blood “into the sacred place,” such as with regard to these offerings, whose blood is supposed to be brought into the Sanctuary, we do not read a prohibition against bringing the blood “within” the Holy of Holies? Or perhaps, since in any event the Holy of Holies is not the proper place for the blood of these offerings, it is disqualified.
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן הוּא – פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁהִזָּה מִדָּמָן עַל הַבַּדִּים, וְהוֹצִיאָן לַהֵיכָל וְהִכְנִיסָן, מַהוּ?
And if you say that the Holy of Holies is not the proper place for the blood of these offerings and they are therefore disqualified, one can raise another dilemma: In the case of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, where the High Priest sprinkled from their blood on the staves of the Ark, as required (see Leviticus 16:14), and he brought their remaining blood out to the Sanctuary and subsequently brought it in again to the Holy of Holies, what is the halakha? Is the blood disqualified by this improper second entrance into the Holy of Holies?
מִי אָמְרִינַן מְקוֹמָן הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק נְפַק?
Rava explains the sides of the question: Do we say that it is its place, as the High Priest is supposed to bring this blood into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur at some point? Or perhaps one should say that since the High Priest has performed the mitzva and the blood has been brought out, it has been brought out, and the Holy of Holies is no longer considered its place.
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק נְפַק – הִזָּה מִדָּמָן עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת,
And if you say that since the blood has been brought out, it has been brought out, one can raise another dilemma: If the High Priest sprinkled from their blood on the Sanctuary Curtain
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 70: Geese, Chickens, and the Broken Neck of a Goat
11.23.2025 | ג׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 66: Procedure, Intent, and Consecration – for Bird Offerings
11.19.2025 | כ״ח בחשון תשפ״ו
Spiritual Aspects of Korbanot: The Permission To Eat Meat
11.17.2025 | כ״ו בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 62: The Ashes of Isaac, or Where to Build the Second Temple’s Altar
11.15.2025 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 61: The Fire Never Left the Altar – Unless It Did?
11.15.2025 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
Zevachim 82
וְנִיתֵּיב לְפָנִים וַהֲדַר נִיתֵּיב לַחוּץ? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּכִי נִכְנַס דָּמָן פְּסוּלִין, לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.
And if you suggest that the priest should first place blood from the mixture inside the Sanctuary and again place blood outside, on the altar, although this resolution is applicable to most offerings whose blood is placed outside, nevertheless the tanna of the mishna chose to omit this case. The reason is that since there are a sin offering and a guilt offering, concerning which, according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, when their blood enters the Sanctuary they are disqualified from being placed on the external altar, the tanna could not teach this halakha categorically. In other words, as the tanna could not issue a categorical ruling that applies to all types of offerings, he omitted the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer here.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בְּחַמִּין, וְאָמַר לוֹ: מְזוֹג לִי. אָמַר לוֹ: בַּמֶּה? אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא בְּחַמִּין אָנוּ עֲסוּקִין עַכְשָׁיו?! בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva would say: Any blood that is to be presented outside that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified. The Gemara discusses the source for Rabbi Akiva’s ruling. The verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). How does Rabbi Akiva apply this halakha to all offerings whose blood is presented on the external altar? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Hear a parable: To what is this matter comparable? To a student who mixed wine with hot water for his teacher. And the teacher said to him: Mix another drink for me. The student said to him: With what should I mix the wine, hot or cold water? The teacher said to him: Aren’t we dealing with hot water? Now that I requested that you mix me another cup, I mean that you should mix it either in hot water or in cold. Otherwise, the teacher would not have needed to say anything.
הָכָא נָמֵי – מִכְּדִי בְּחַטָּאת עָסְקִינַן וְאָתֵי, ״חַטָּאת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא לָאו חַטָּאת קָאָמֵינָא לַהּ, אֶלָּא כׇּל קָדָשִׁים.
Here too, since we have been dealing with a sin offering in that passage (see Leviticus 6:17–22), why do I need the term “sin offering” that the Merciful One writes in this verse? Even without this term it is clear that the Torah is referring to a sin offering. Rather, as in the parable, the Torah mentions a sin offering to teach: I do not say this halakha with regard to a sin offering alone, i.e., that only the blood of a sin offering is disqualified when it is brought inside the Sanctuary, but the blood of all sacrificial animals is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מִכְּדֵי אִיתְרַבּוֹ כׇּל קָדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ לְעִנְיַן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, ״חַטָּאת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: חַטָּאת אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, objects to this explanation: Accordingly, one should reach the opposite conclusion: Since all sacrificial animals that are sacrificed on the altar are included in this passage of the Torah with regard to scouring and rinsing, as derived by the Sages, despite the fact that this requirement is stated in connection with a sin offering (see Leviticus 6:21), it is already established that this chapter is speaking of all offerings. Consequently, why do I need the term “sin offering” that the Merciful One writes with regard to the matter of blood that entered the Sanctuary? Learn from the verse that in the case of a sin offering whose blood entered the Sanctuary, yes, it is disqualified, but if the blood of any other offering entered the Sanctuary, no, it is not disqualified.
וְהָא לָא דָּמְיָא אֶלָּא לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בֵּין בְּחַמִּין בֵּין בְּצוֹנֵן, אָמַר לוֹ: אַל תִּמְזוֹג לִי אֶלָּא חַמִּין!
Rav Huna addresses Shmuel’s parable: And if you wish to provide a comparison, it is comparable only to a student who initially mixed wine for his teacher with both hot and cold water, and his teacher then said to him: Mix wine for me only with hot water.
אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵ״חַטָּאת״ ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״; דְּתַנְיָא: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חַטָּאת״. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
Rav Huna continues: Rather, the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva is from the fact that the verse does not state simply: “Sin offering,” but states: “Any sin offering”; this serves to include all other offerings. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). I have derived that this halakha applies only with regard to a sin offering; from where is it derived that it also applies to offerings of the most sacred order? The verse states: “Any sin offering.” And from where is it derived that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: “And any sin offering.” This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: אֲפִילּוּ אַתָּה מְרַבֶּה כׇּל הַיּוֹם כּוּלּוֹ, אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לְךָ אֶלָּא חַטָּאת. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטַּאת יָחִיד, חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל חַטָּאת״. וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת זָכָר, חַטָּאת נְקֵבָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל״.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to Rabbi Akiva: Even if you include offerings in this manner from the verse all day long, I will not listen to you. Rather, this verse is referring to a sin offering alone, and it should be expounded as follows: The verse states: “Sin offering”; I have derived only that this halakha applies to the sin offering of an individual. From where is it derived that the same applies to a communal sin offering? The verse states: “Any sin offering.” And one can still say: I have derived only that this halakha applies to a male sin offering; from where is it derived that the same applies to a female sin offering? The verse states: “And any sin offering.”
כְּלַפֵּי לְיָיא? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת נְקֵבָה, חַטָּאת זָכָר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכׇל חַטָּאת״.
The Gemara asks: Why is it assumed that the application of this halakha to a male sin offering is more obvious than to a female sin offering? Isn’t it the opposite [kelapei layya], as the standard sin offering of an individual is a female? Rather, this is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is saying: One can still ask: I have derived only that this halakha applies to a female sin offering; from where is it derived that the same applies to a male sin offering? The verse states: “And any sin offering.”
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: הַאי קְרָא לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: (לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ) כׇּל הָעִנְיָן כּוּלּוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים –
The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili hold that this verse comes for this purpose, to teach the halakha of sin offerings whose blood was brought inside the Sanctuary? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: As we have found the entire matter that is stated in the verse: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 6:23), is not stated with regard to a standard sin offering improperly brought inside the Sanctuary; rather, it speaks only about bulls that are burned and goats that are burned.
לִשְׂרוֹף פְּסוּלֵיהֶן אַבֵּית הַבִּירָה, וְלַעֲמוֹד בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ.
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili elaborates: These are unique sin offerings, and the Torah states that their blood should be brought inside the Sanctuary. The verse is stated with regard to these sin offerings both in order to command the Jewish people to burn their disqualified ones in the Temple and in order to establish a prohibition with regard to their consumption.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – מִנַּיִן? אָמַר לָהֶם: ״הֵן לֹא הוּבָא״.
The baraita continues: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If you expound the verse in this fashion, then from where is it derived that a standard sin offering whose blood entered the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies, must be burned? Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to them that it is derived from the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within” (Leviticus 10:18). This indicates that had the sin offering referred to in the verse been brought inside the Sanctuary, it should have been burned. In any event, with regard to the issue at hand, since Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the verse from Leviticus 6:23 in this manner, how can he interpret it differently in his dispute with Rabbi Akiva?
לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili spoke according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, i.e., although Rabbi Yosei HaGelili interprets the verse in a different manner, according to Rabbi Akiva’s explanation it should be understood as referring only to a sin offering, not to other offerings.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטָּאת שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָה בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת, יָצָא אֶחָד מֵהֶן לַחוּץ – הַפְּנִימִי כָּשֵׁר. נִכְנַס אֶחָד מֵהֶם לִפְנִים – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי מַכְשִׁיר בַּחִיצוֹן, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹסְלִין.
MISHNA: In the case of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar whose blood the priest collected in two cups, if one of them left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, the cup that remained inside the courtyard is fit to be presented. If one of the cups entered inside the Sanctuary and was thereby disqualified, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deems the blood in the cup that remained outside the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, fit to be presented, and the Rabbis deem it disqualified from being presented.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי: מָה אִם בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ – לֹא עָשָׂה אֶת הַמְשׁוּיָּר כַּיּוֹצֵא, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשֶׂה אֶת הַמְשׁוּיָּר כַּנִּכְנָס?!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said in support of his opinion: The halakha is that if one slaughters an offering with the intent that its blood be presented outside of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified, but if his intention was that the blood be presented inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not disqualified. Just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, and yet when some of the blood is taken there it does not render the status of the remaining blood disqualified like that of blood that leaves the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, is it not logical that we will not deem the status of the remaining blood like that of blood that entered the Sanctuary?
נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כִּפֵּר – פָּסוּל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּכַפֵּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הִכְנִיס שׁוֹגֵג – כָּשֵׁר.
The mishna continues: If all of the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, despite the fact that the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood to atone, the offering is disqualified; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is disqualified only when he atones and sprinkles the blood in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit to be presented.
כָּל הַדָּמִים פְּסוּלִין שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא הִרְצָה הַצִּיץ אֶלָּא עַל הַטָּמֵא. שֶׁהַצִּיץ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַטָּמֵא, וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַיּוֹצֵא.
With regard to all the blood disqualified for presentation that was placed on the altar, the frontplate effects acceptance only for offerings sacrificed that are ritually impure. Although it is written with regard to the frontplate worn on the forehead of the High Priest: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters” (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is because the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacrificed that are ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for offerings that leave the courtyard.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בַּחוּץ – לֹא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים; מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בִּפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסוֹל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ?
GEMARA: With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and the Rabbis as to whether the blood of a sin offering in a second cup is disqualified if the blood in the first cup entered the Sanctuary, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: This is an a fortiori inference: And just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, and yet that blood that was taken outside does not disqualify the blood that is still inside the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, is it not logical that the blood that was taken inside will not disqualify the blood that is still outside the Sanctuary?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא מִדָּמָהּ״ – אֲפִילּוּ מִקְצָת דָּמָהּ.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that even if part of its blood is brought inside the Sanctuary, the sin offering is disqualified.
אָמַר לָהֶם, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַיּוֹצֵא מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בִּפְנִים – פּוֹסֵל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ; מְקוֹם שֶׁמַּחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת, בַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים?
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to the Rabbis: If you expound the verse in that manner, then from now one can derive an a fortiori inference with regard to the blood that leaves the courtyard: And just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, the blood that was taken inside disqualifies the blood that is still outside, i.e., in the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, is it not logical that the blood that was taken outside will disqualify the blood that is still inside the courtyard? Why do the Rabbis deem this blood fit?
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״אֲשֶׁר יוּבָא״ – הַנִּכְנָס פּוֹסֵל וְאֵין הַיּוֹצֵא פּוֹסֵל.
The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili in response: But the verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). This teaches that only blood that enters the Sanctuary disqualifies the blood in the courtyard, but the blood that leaves the courtyard does not disqualify the blood in the courtyard.
וּתְהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה בִּפְנִים פּוֹסֶלֶת מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ, מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים?
In light of this discussion, the Gemara asks: And let intent to present the blood inside the Sanctuary disqualify the offering based on an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went outside does not disqualify the rest of the blood that is inside the courtyard, and yet intent to present the blood in this place disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the courtyard, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, is it not logical that intent to present the blood in this place will disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the courtyard?
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי״ –
The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: “And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted” (Leviticus 19:7), and the Sages expounded this verse with regard to the halakha of intent while slaughtering an offering.
מָקוֹם שֶׁיְּהֵא מְשׁוּלָּשׁ בְּדָם, בְּבָשָׂר, בְּאֵימוּרִים.
This verse teaches that the place where improper intent disqualifies the offering must be triply functional: For the presenting of the blood, for the eating of the meat, and for the burning of the sacrificial portions of the offering that are consumed on the altar. In other words, it must be outside its designated place with regard to all three of these issues. Consequently, intent to present the blood in the Sanctuary does not disqualify the blood.
וְלֹא תְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים, מְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבְּפָנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא פּוֹסֵל מַחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ?
The Gemara suggests the opposite: And if so, let intent to present the blood outside the Sanctuary not disqualify the offering based on an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside in the courtyard, and yet intent to present the blood inside the Sanctuary does not disqualify the offering, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the rest of the blood that is inside the courtyard, is it not logical that intent to present the blood outside the courtyard does not disqualify the offering?
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שְׁלִישִׁי״ – חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, ״פִּגּוּל״ – חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.
The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted,” and the Sages interpreted this verse as follows: “On the third day” is referring to intent to perform its rites beyond its designated time; “it is piggul” is referring to intent to perform its rites outside its designated area.
בָּשָׂר [הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ – פָּסוּל], הַנִּכְנָס לִפְנִים – כָּשֵׁר.
A baraita teaches: The meat of offerings that left its designated area and was taken to a place that is outside its designated area for consumption, which is outside the wall of Jerusalem in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity and outside the wall of the Temple courtyard in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, is disqualified from being eaten. By contrast, meat of offerings that entered inside the Sanctuary is not disqualified and remains fit to be eaten.
שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדִּין שֶׁפָּסוּל: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ פָּסוּל, מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס בִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל?
One might have thought that it should be derived based on a logical inference that this meat is disqualified, as follows: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the rest of the blood that remained inside the courtyard, yet meat that leaves and is taken outside the courtyard is disqualified, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside the Sanctuary, is it not right that meat that enters the Sanctuary should be disqualified?
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מִדָּמָהּ״ – דָּמָהּ וְלֹא (בשר) [בְּשָׂרָהּ].
The baraita explains that one does not derive this inference, as the verse states: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23), which indicates that the blood of an offering that is brought inside is disqualified, but not meat that enters the Sanctuary.
קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס לְפָנִים כָּשֵׁר; מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁכָּשֵׁר?!
The baraita continues: From now, as it has been established that the meat of offerings that is brought inside the Sanctuary is not disqualified, one can suggest an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the blood that remained outside in the courtyard, and yet meat that enters the Sanctuary is fit, therefore, in a place where the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the blood that is inside the courtyard, is it not logical that meat that left and was taken outside the courtyard should be fit?
הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא בָּשָׂר חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתוֹ, נֶאֱסָר.
The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field” (Exodus 22:30). The apparently superfluous term “in the field” teaches a general halakha: Once meat has left and been removed outside of its boundary, i.e., the area in which it is permitted to consume it, it has become prohibited.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּנִימָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פְּנִימָה, הֵיכָל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״.
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the blood of a sin offering that entered the Sanctuary. The Sages taught: It is stated that when Moses questioned Aaron as to why a sin offering was not consumed, he said: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within” (Leviticus 10:18). This indicates that had the blood been brought within, Moses would have understood that the offering would have been disqualified and rendered prohibited for consumption. The baraita comments: I have derived only that the offering is disqualified if the blood is brought within, i.e., into the Holy of Holies; from where is it derived that the same applies if it was merely brought into the Sanctuary? The verse states: “Into the sacred place within,” and this sacred place is the Sanctuary.
וְיֹאמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״, וְאַל וְיֹאמַר ״פְּנִימָה״! אָמַר רָבָא: בָּא זֶה וְלִימֵּד עַל זֶה; מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״.
The Gemara questions this derivation: And let the verse state only “sacred place,” and it need not state “within.” If blood that entered the Sanctuary is already disqualified, this halakha certainly applies if it was brought farther inside, to the Holy of Holies. Rava says: This verse comes and teaches about that verse. In other words, had the verse stated only “sacred place,” it would have been interpreted as referring to the Holy of Holies. The addition of “within” indicates that this sacred place is the Sanctuary, while the term “within” is referring to the Holy of Holies. The Gemara cites a similar example: This is just as it is with regard to a tenant and a hired worker.
דְּתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, ״שָׂכִיר״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים.
As it is taught in a baraita concerning teruma: The verse states: “A tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated” (Leviticus 22:10). “A tenant”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been acquired as a permanent acquisition, i.e., one who said he wishes to stay with his master. This slave has his ear pierced and he remains with his master until the Jubilee Year. “A hired worker”; this is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been acquired for an acquisition of six years, the standard period of servitude for a Hebrew slave.
יֹאמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ וְאַל יֹאמַר ״שָׂכִיר״, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?
The baraita asks: Let the verse say “tenant” and let it not say “hired worker,” and I would say: If one who is acquired as a permanent acquisition does not partake of his master’s, i.e., the priest’s, teruma, as despite his status as a slave he is not considered his master’s property, is it not all the more so logical that one who is acquired for an acquisition of six years should not be permitted to partake of teruma?
אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים, אֲבָל קְנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם יְהֵא אוֹכֵל; בָּא ״שָׂכִיר״ וְלִימֵּד עַל ״תּוֹשָׁב״, שֶׁזֶּה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וְזֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים – וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל.
The baraita answers: If so, that the verse were stated in this manner, I would say: “A tenant”; this is one who was acquired for an acquisition of six years, as the term itself is ambiguous, but one who was acquired as a permanent acquisition may partake of teruma. Therefore, the term “hired worker,” which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, comes and teaches about the meaning of the term “tenant,” that this one was acquired as a permanent acquisition and that one was acquired for an acquisition of six years, and both this one and that one may not partake of teruma. Similar reasoning applies in the above case concerning the terms “sacred place” and “within.”
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם – תְּרֵי גוּפֵי נִינְהוּ; וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לִקְרָא לְמִכְתַּב ״נִרְצָע לֹא יֹאכַל״, וְאִידַּךְ אָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר – מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא. אֶלָּא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן (דְּאִיכָּא) דְּאִיפְּסֵל בְּהֵיכָל, (הָכָא) לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים מַאי בָּעֵי?
Abaye said to Rava: Are these cases comparable? Granted, there, the tenant and the hired worker are two bodies. And this is significant, as even though the verse could have written explicitly that a pierced tenant may not partake of teruma, from which the halakha of a Hebrew slave for six years could have been inferred, and the other case, that of a slave for six years, is therefore a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, it need not be stated explicitly. Nevertheless, there is a principle: At times, with regard to a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly. But here, the same blood enters the Holy of Holies via the Sanctuary, and once it is disqualified in the Sanctuary, why is it necessary for the verse to teach that this blood is disqualified when it enters the innermost sanctum, the Holy of Holies?
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְדֶרֶךְ מְשׁוּפָּשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא הֲבָאָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – לָא מִיפְּסֵל בְּהֵיכָל.
Rather, Abaye says: This mention of “within” is necessary only for a case where the blood entered the Holy of Holies not via the Sanctuary but in a roundabout manner, e.g., from the roof or the loft of the Holy of Holies, without having entered the Sanctuary. Rava said to Abaye: But an expression of bringing is written in the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within,” which indicates a standard manner of bringing it into the Holy of Holies. Rather, Rava says: In any circumstance where the priest intended to bring the blood inside the innermost sanctum, it is not disqualified when it is only in the Sanctuary, and therefore it was necessary for the verse to teach both disqualifications.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁהִכְנִיס דָּמָן לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – מַהוּ?
§ Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin and the goat for a sin of idol worship, whose blood should be presented in the Sanctuary, if it occurred that the priest brought their blood into the innermost sanctum, what is the halakha?
מִי אָמְרִינַן: ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״ – כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינַן ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ קָרֵינַן לֵיהּ ״פְּנִימָה״, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָרֵינַן ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ לָא קָרֵינַן ״פְּנִימָה״; אוֹ דִלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן הוּא?
Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the verse states: “Into the sacred place within” (Leviticus 10:18) as a single phrase, and therefore anywhere that we read a prohibition against bringing the blood “into the sacred place,” i.e., that the blood is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary, we also read a prohibition against bringing the blood “within,” i.e., that it is likewise disqualified when it is brought into the Holy of Holies; but anywhere that we do not read a prohibition against bringing the blood “into the sacred place,” such as with regard to these offerings, whose blood is supposed to be brought into the Sanctuary, we do not read a prohibition against bringing the blood “within” the Holy of Holies? Or perhaps, since in any event the Holy of Holies is not the proper place for the blood of these offerings, it is disqualified.
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן הוּא – פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁהִזָּה מִדָּמָן עַל הַבַּדִּים, וְהוֹצִיאָן לַהֵיכָל וְהִכְנִיסָן, מַהוּ?
And if you say that the Holy of Holies is not the proper place for the blood of these offerings and they are therefore disqualified, one can raise another dilemma: In the case of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, where the High Priest sprinkled from their blood on the staves of the Ark, as required (see Leviticus 16:14), and he brought their remaining blood out to the Sanctuary and subsequently brought it in again to the Holy of Holies, what is the halakha? Is the blood disqualified by this improper second entrance into the Holy of Holies?
מִי אָמְרִינַן מְקוֹמָן הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק נְפַק?
Rava explains the sides of the question: Do we say that it is its place, as the High Priest is supposed to bring this blood into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur at some point? Or perhaps one should say that since the High Priest has performed the mitzva and the blood has been brought out, it has been brought out, and the Holy of Holies is no longer considered its place.
וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק נְפַק – הִזָּה מִדָּמָן עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת,
And if you say that since the blood has been brought out, it has been brought out, one can raise another dilemma: If the High Priest sprinkled from their blood on the Sanctuary Curtain
Follow
