Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 4, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 82

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?

讜谞讬转讬讘 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讛讚专 谞讬转讬讘 诇讞讜抓 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚讻讬 谞讻谞住 讚诪谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

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.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇转诇诪讬讚 砖诪讝讙 诇专讘讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诪讝讜讙 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讘诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讗谞讜 注住讜拽讬谉 注讻砖讬讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉

搂 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鈥檚 ruling. The verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (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鈥檛 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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讻讚讬 讘讞讟讗转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗转讬 讞讟讗转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讞讟讗转 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 拽讚砖讬诐

Here too, since we have been dealing with a sin offering in that passage (see Leviticus 6:17鈥22), why do I need the term 鈥渟in offering鈥 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻讚讬 讗讬转专讘讜 讻诇 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 诇注谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讞讟讗转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

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 鈥渟in offering鈥 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.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇转诇诪讬讚 砖诪讝讙 诇专讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转诪讝讜讙 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞诪讬谉

Rav Huna addresses Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讟讗转 讜讻诇 讞讟讗转 讚转谞讬讗 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rav Huna continues: Rather, the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva is from the fact that the verse does not state simply: 鈥淪in offering,鈥 but states: 鈥淎ny sin offering鈥; this serves to include all other offerings. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (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: 鈥淎ny sin offering.鈥 And from where is it derived that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering.鈥 This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪专讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讬 砖讜诪注 诇讱 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讬讞讬讚 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讝讻专 讞讟讗转 谞拽讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇

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: 鈥淪in offering鈥; 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: 鈥淎ny sin offering.鈥 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: 鈥淎nd any sin offering.鈥

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 谞拽讘讛 讞讟讗转 讝讻专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讞讟讗转

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鈥檛 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: 鈥淎nd any sin offering.鈥

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 拽专讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 (诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜) 讻诇 讛注谞讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: As we have found the entire matter that is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诇砖专讜祝 驻住讜诇讬讛谉 讗讘讬转 讛讘讬专讛 讜诇注诪讜讚 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞讟讗转 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗

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: 鈥淏ehold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within鈥 (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?

诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗诪专

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鈥檚 explanation it should be understood as referring only to a sin offering, not to other offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讞讜抓 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讻砖专 谞讻谞住 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讻砖讬专 讘讞讬爪讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讛 讗诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛诪砖讜讬专 讻讬讜爪讗 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讗转 讛诪砖讜讬专 讻谞讻谞住

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?

谞讻谞住 诇讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讻驻专 驻住讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讻驻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 砖讜讙讙 讻砖专

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.

讻诇 讛讚诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞转谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讛专爪讛 讛爪讬抓 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讟诪讗 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讬讜爪讗

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters鈥 (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is because the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacri-ficed that are ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for offerings that leave the courtyard.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬驻住讜诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓

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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讜讘讗 诪讚诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讚诪讛

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that even if part of its blood is brought inside the Sanctuary, the sin offering is disqualified.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讬讜爪讗 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讜住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻住讜诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐

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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讜讘讗 讛谞讻谞住 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 驻讜住诇

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili in response: But the verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (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.

讜转讛讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讜住诇转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐

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?

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬

The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7), and the Sages expounded this verse with regard to the halakha of intent while slaughtering an offering.

诪拽讜诐 砖讬讛讗 诪砖讜诇砖 讘讚诐 讘讘砖专 讘讗讬诪讜专讬诐

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.

讜诇讗 转讛讗 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻讜住诇 诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓

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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖诇讬砖讬 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讙讜诇 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted,鈥 and the Sages interpreted this verse as follows: 鈥淥n the third day鈥 is referring to intent to perform its rites beyond its designated time; 鈥渋t is piggul is referring to intent to perform its rites outside its designated area.

讘砖专 [讛讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜抓 驻住讜诇] 讛谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 讻砖专

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.

砖讬讛讗 讘讚讬谉 砖驻住讜诇 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讘砖专 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 讘砖专 讛谞讻谞住 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻住讜诇

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?

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讚诪讛 讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讘砖专

The baraita explains that one does not derive this inference, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:23), which indicates that the blood of an offering that is brought inside is disqualified, but not meat that enters the Sanctuary.

拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 讘砖专 讛谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 讻砖专 诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讘砖专 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻砖专

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?

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讘砖专 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 谞讗住专

The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field鈥 (Exodus 22:30). The apparently superfluous term 鈥渋n the field鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻谞讬诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 驻谞讬诪讛 讛讬讻诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 驻谞讬诪讛

搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the blood of a sin offer-ing 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: 鈥淏ehold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within鈥 (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: 鈥淚nto the sacred place within,鈥 and this sacred place is the Sanctuary.

讜讬讗诪专 拽讚砖 讜讗诇 讬讗诪专 驻谞讬诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗 讝讛 讜诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专

The Gemara questions this derivation: And let the verse state only 鈥渟acred place,鈥 and it need not state 鈥渨ithin.鈥 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 鈥渟acred place,鈥 it would have been interpreted as referring to the Holy of Holies. The addition of 鈥渨ithin鈥 indicates that this sacred place is the Sanctuary, while the term 鈥渨ithin鈥 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.

讚转谞讬讗 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 砖讻讬专 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita concerning teruma: The verse states: 鈥淎 tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated鈥 (Leviticus 22:10). 鈥淎 tenant鈥; 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. 鈥淎 hired worker鈥; 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.

讬讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜讗诇 讬讗诪专 砖讻讬专 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The baraita asks: Let the verse say 鈥渢enant鈥 and let it not say 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 and I would say: If one who is acquired as a permanent acquisition does not partake of his master鈥檚, i.e., the priest鈥檚, teruma, as despite his status as a slave he is not considered his master鈥檚 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?

讗讬诇讜 讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 讘讗 砖讻讬专 讜诇讬诪讚 注诇 转讜砖讘 砖讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讜讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇

The baraita answers: If so, that the verse were stated in this manner, I would say: 鈥淎 tenant鈥; 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 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, comes and teaches about the meaning of the term 鈥渢enant,鈥 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 鈥渟acred place鈥 and 鈥渨ithin.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 诇诪讻转讘 谞专爪注 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 (讚讗讬讻讗) 讚讗讬驻住诇 讘讛讬讻诇 (讛讻讗) 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘注讬

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讚专讱 诪砖讜驻砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讛讘讗讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讬驻住诇 讘讛讬讻诇

Rather, Abaye says: This mention of 鈥渨ithin鈥 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: 鈥淏ehold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within,鈥 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讻谞讬住 讚诪谉 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诪讛讜

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 驻谞讬诪讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 拽专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 驻谞讬诪讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 驻谞讬诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讛讜讗

Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the verse states: 鈥淚nto the sacred place within鈥 (Leviticus 10:18) as a single phrase, and therefore anywhere that we read a prohibition against bringing the blood 鈥渋nto the sacred place,鈥 i.e., that the blood is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary, we also read a prohibition against bringing the blood 鈥渨ithin,鈥 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 鈥渋nto the sacred place,鈥 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 鈥渨ithin鈥 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.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讛讜讗 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖讛讝讛 诪讚诪谉 注诇 讛讘讚讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讛讬讻诇 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诪讛讜

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻拽 谞驻拽

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.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻拽 谞驻拽 讛讝讛 诪讚诪谉 注诇 讛驻专讻转

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 82

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 82

讜谞讬转讬讘 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讛讚专 谞讬转讬讘 诇讞讜抓 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚讻讬 谞讻谞住 讚诪谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诇讬讛

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.

砖讛讬讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诇 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇转诇诪讬讚 砖诪讝讙 诇专讘讜 讘讞诪讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讜 诪讝讜讙 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讘诪讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讘讞诪讬谉 讗谞讜 注住讜拽讬谉 注讻砖讬讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉

搂 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鈥檚 ruling. The verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (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鈥檛 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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讻讚讬 讘讞讟讗转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讗转讬 讞讟讗转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讞讟讗转 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讗诇讗 讻诇 拽讚砖讬诐

Here too, since we have been dealing with a sin offering in that passage (see Leviticus 6:17鈥22), why do I need the term 鈥渟in offering鈥 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻讚讬 讗讬转专讘讜 讻诇 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 诇注谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讞讟讗转 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

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 鈥渟in offering鈥 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.

讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬讗 讗诇讗 诇转诇诪讬讚 砖诪讝讙 诇专讘讜 讘讬谉 讘讞诪讬谉 讘讬谉 讘爪讜谞谉 讗诪专 诇讜 讗诇 转诪讝讜讙 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞诪讬谉

Rav Huna addresses Shmuel鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讟讗转 讜讻诇 讞讟讗转 讚转谞讬讗 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Rav Huna continues: Rather, the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva is from the fact that the verse does not state simply: 鈥淪in offering,鈥 but states: 鈥淎ny sin offering鈥; this serves to include all other offerings. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (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: 鈥淎ny sin offering.鈥 And from where is it derived that it also applies to offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering.鈥 This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讗转讛 诪专讘讛 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讬 砖讜诪注 诇讱 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讬讞讬讚 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 讝讻专 讞讟讗转 谞拽讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇

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: 鈥淪in offering鈥; 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: 鈥淎ny sin offering.鈥 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: 鈥淎nd any sin offering.鈥

讻诇驻讬 诇讬讬讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞讟讗转 谞拽讘讛 讞讟讗转 讝讻专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇 讞讟讗转

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鈥檛 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: 鈥淎nd any sin offering.鈥

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讛讗讬 拽专讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 (诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜) 讻诇 讛注谞讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: As we have found the entire matter that is stated in the verse: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诇砖专讜祝 驻住讜诇讬讛谉 讗讘讬转 讛讘讬专讛 讜诇注诪讜讚 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 注诇 讗讻讬诇转讜

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.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讞讟讗转 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛谉 诇讗 讛讜讘讗

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: 鈥淏ehold, its blood was not brought into the Sanctuary within鈥 (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?

诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗诪专

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鈥檚 explanation it should be understood as referring only to a sin offering, not to other offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 讬爪讗 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇讞讜抓 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讻砖专 谞讻谞住 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇驻谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讻砖讬专 讘讞讬爪讜谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 诪讛 讗诐 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讛诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 注砖讛 讗转 讛诪砖讜讬专 讻讬讜爪讗 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 谞注砖讛 讗转 讛诪砖讜讬专 讻谞讻谞住

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?

谞讻谞住 诇讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 讻驻专 驻住讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬讻驻专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讻谞讬住 砖讜讙讙 讻砖专

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.

讻诇 讛讚诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞转谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讛专爪讛 讛爪讬抓 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讟诪讗 砖讛爪讬抓 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讟诪讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪专爪讛 注诇 讛讬讜爪讗

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: 鈥淎nd it shall be upon Aaron鈥檚 forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters鈥 (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is because the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacri-ficed that are ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for offerings that leave the courtyard.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬驻住讜诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓

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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讜讘讗 诪讚诪讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪转 讚诪讛

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that even if part of its blood is brought inside the Sanctuary, the sin offering is disqualified.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇讬讜爪讗 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讜住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻住讜诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐

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?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 讬讜讘讗 讛谞讻谞住 驻讜住诇 讜讗讬谉 讛讬讜爪讗 驻讜住诇

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili in response: But the verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (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.

讜转讛讗 诪讞砖讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讜住诇转 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讛讗 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐

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?

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬

The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7), and the Sages expounded this verse with regard to the halakha of intent while slaughtering an offering.

诪拽讜诐 砖讬讛讗 诪砖讜诇砖 讘讚诐 讘讘砖专 讘讗讬诪讜专讬诐

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.

讜诇讗 转讛讗 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘讞讜抓 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 驻讜住诇转 讘驻谞讬诐 诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 驻讜住诇 诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓

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?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖诇讬砖讬 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讙讜诇 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted,鈥 and the Sages interpreted this verse as follows: 鈥淥n the third day鈥 is referring to intent to perform its rites beyond its designated time; 鈥渋t is piggul is referring to intent to perform its rites outside its designated area.

讘砖专 [讛讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜抓 驻住讜诇] 讛谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 讻砖专

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.

砖讬讛讗 讘讚讬谉 砖驻住讜诇 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讘砖专 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 讘砖专 讛谞讻谞住 讘驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬驻住讜诇

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?

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪讚诪讛 讚诪讛 讜诇讗 讘砖专

The baraita explains that one does not derive this inference, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:23), which indicates that the blood of an offering that is brought inside is disqualified, but not meat that enters the Sanctuary.

拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讗转 砖讘讞讜抓 讘砖专 讛谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬诐 讻砖专 诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 驻住诇 讚诐 砖讘讞讜抓 讗转 砖讘驻谞讬诐 讘砖专 讛讬讜爪讗 诇讞讜抓 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讻砖专

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?

讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讬爪讗 讘砖专 讞讜抓 诇诪讞讬爪转讜 谞讗住专

The Gemara explains that one does not derive this a fortiori inference, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field鈥 (Exodus 22:30). The apparently superfluous term 鈥渋n the field鈥 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻谞讬诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 驻谞讬诪讛 讛讬讻诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 驻谞讬诪讛

搂 The Gemara returns to its discussion of the blood of a sin offer-ing 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: 鈥淏ehold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within鈥 (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: 鈥淚nto the sacred place within,鈥 and this sacred place is the Sanctuary.

讜讬讗诪专 拽讚砖 讜讗诇 讬讗诪专 驻谞讬诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗 讝讛 讜诇讬诪讚 注诇 讝讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗转讜砖讘 讜砖讻讬专

The Gemara questions this derivation: And let the verse state only 鈥渟acred place,鈥 and it need not state 鈥渨ithin.鈥 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 鈥渟acred place,鈥 it would have been interpreted as referring to the Holy of Holies. The addition of 鈥渨ithin鈥 indicates that this sacred place is the Sanctuary, while the term 鈥渨ithin鈥 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.

讚转谞讬讗 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 砖讻讬专 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita concerning teruma: The verse states: 鈥淎 tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated鈥 (Leviticus 22:10). 鈥淎 tenant鈥; 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. 鈥淎 hired worker鈥; 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.

讬讗诪专 转讜砖讘 讜讗诇 讬讗诪专 砖讻讬专 讜讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

The baraita asks: Let the verse say 鈥渢enant鈥 and let it not say 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 and I would say: If one who is acquired as a permanent acquisition does not partake of his master鈥檚, i.e., the priest鈥檚, teruma, as despite his status as a slave he is not considered his master鈥檚 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?

讗讬诇讜 讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 转讜砖讘 讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇 讘讗 砖讻讬专 讜诇讬诪讚 注诇 转讜砖讘 砖讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讜讝讛 拽谞讜讬 拽谞讬谉 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇

The baraita answers: If so, that the verse were stated in this manner, I would say: 鈥淎 tenant鈥; 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 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, comes and teaches about the meaning of the term 鈥渢enant,鈥 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 鈥渟acred place鈥 and 鈥渨ithin.鈥

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 转专讬 讙讜驻讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇拽专讗 诇诪讻转讘 谞专爪注 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 讜讗讬讚讱 讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讟专讞 讜讻转讘 诇讛 拽专讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 (讚讗讬讻讗) 讚讗讬驻住诇 讘讛讬讻诇 (讛讻讗) 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘注讬

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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讚专讱 诪砖讜驻砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讛讘讗讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚讞砖讬讘 注诇讬讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讬驻住诇 讘讛讬讻诇

Rather, Abaye says: This mention of 鈥渨ithin鈥 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: 鈥淏ehold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within,鈥 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.

讘注讬 专讘讗 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讜砖注讬专 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讛讻谞讬住 讚诪谉 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 诪讛讜

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 驻谞讬诪讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚拽专讬谞谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 拽专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 驻谞讬诪讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 讗诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讗 拽专讬谞谉 驻谞讬诪讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讛讜讗

Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that since the verse states: 鈥淚nto the sacred place within鈥 (Leviticus 10:18) as a single phrase, and therefore anywhere that we read a prohibition against bringing the blood 鈥渋nto the sacred place,鈥 i.e., that the blood is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary, we also read a prohibition against bringing the blood 鈥渨ithin,鈥 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 鈥渋nto the sacred place,鈥 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 鈥渨ithin鈥 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.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪谉 讛讜讗 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖讛讝讛 诪讚诪谉 注诇 讛讘讚讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讛讬讻诇 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诪讛讜

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?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽讜诪谉 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻拽 谞驻拽

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.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻拽 谞驻拽 讛讝讛 诪讚诪谉 注诇 讛驻专讻转

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

Scroll To Top