Zevachim 88

חטאת העוף פסולה היכי מזה מדמה הוה ליה ירוד שאר פסולים היכי זריק להו מדמה

then with regard to the case of a disqualified bird sin offering that was pinched at the top of the altar, how does one sprinkle from its blood on the wall of the altar? When the priest raises the bird in his hand in order to sprinkle its blood, the bird is considered to have descended from upon the altar and he cannot sprinkle its blood, as the halakha with regard to all disqualified items is that once they have descended from upon the altar they shall not ascend. Likewise, concerning the blood of other offerings that were disqualified that ascended upon the altar, how does he sprinkle from their blood, since it is sprinkled from the airspace above the altar? Rather, it must be that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar.

דמגע להו הא הזאה היא מיצוי היא הא זריקה שפיכה היא

The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that in such cases one does not sprinkle the blood in its normal fashion, but in such a manner that he presses it against the wall of the altar immediately without the blood passing through the air. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Is this considered sprinkling? It is squeezing, an act that is performed for a bird burnt offering, not for a bird sin offering. Likewise, if one sprinkles the blood of other disqualified offerings in this manner, is this sprinkling? It is pouring.

ועוד דרך הזאה בכך דרך זריקה בכך

And furthermore, with regard to a disqualified bird burnt offering, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? And in the case of other disqualified offerings, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? It is not. Rather, the airspace above the altar must be considered as the altar.

אמר רב אשי אי דנקט להו בראש המזבח הכי נמי כי קאמר דתלנהו בקניא מאי תיקו

Rav Ashi said: If the question concerns a case where the priest held the blood or limbs while standing at the top of the altar, they would indeed be considered as having ascended the altar, and shall not descend from it. But when the dilemma was stated with regard to the airspace above the altar, it was with regard to an instance where he suspended them with a pole above the altar, while he himself stood on the floor of the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara responds that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מתני׳ כלי הלח מקדשין את הלח ומדות יבש מקדשות את היבש אין כלי הלח מקדשת את היבש ולא יבש מקדש את הלח כלי הקודש שניקבו אם עושין בהן מעין מלאכתן שהיו עושין והן שלימים מקדשין ואם לאו אין מקדשין וכולן אין מקדשין אלא בקודש

MISHNA: The mishna elaborates on the halakha taught in the previous mishna (86a) that service vessels sanctify items placed in them. The service vessels used for liquids sanctify only liquids used in the service, and the service vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only dry items used in the service. The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, and the service vessels used for dry items do not sanctify liquids. With regard to sacred vessels that were perforated, if one continues to utilize them for a use similar to the use for which they would utilize them previously when they were whole, they continue to sanctify their contents. And if not, they do not sanctify their contents. And all of these vessels sanctify items only when they are in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard.

גמ׳ אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא מדות אבל מזרקות מקדשין שנאמר שניהם מלאים סלת

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, Shmuel says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to measures used for liquids, i.e., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry items as well, as it is stated in the verse: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry item.

אמר ליה רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא מנחה לחה היא אמר ליה לא נצרכה אלא ליבש שבה איבעית אימא מנחה לגבי דם כיבש דמי

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: The meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mixed with oil, and one cannot derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry. Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel was only necessary to derive the halakha of the dry portions of a meal offering, teaching that even flour that remained dry because it did not get thoroughly mixed with the oil is sanctified by the cups as well. If you wish, say instead: A meal offering, even though it is mixed with oil, is, in comparison to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one can derive from the verse that the cups sanctify all dry items.

אמר שמואל כלי שרת אין מקדשין אלא שלימין אין מקדשין אלא מלאין אין מקדשין אלא מתוכן ואמרי לה אין מקדשין אלא שלימין ומלאים ומבפנים

Additionally, Shmuel says: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, i.e., they do not have a hole; they sanctify only full measures, i.e., when they contain a measurement fit for offering; and they sanctify items only from within them and not items that merely touched their exterior. And some say there is another version of the statement of Shmuel: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, and when they contain full measures, and from inside.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו בירוצי מדות במתניתא תנא אין מקדשין אלא שלימין ומלאים ומתוכן ובפנים

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to heaping measures. According to the first version, that service vessels sanctify only items that are within them, nothing that overflows is included. The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with both versions: Service vessels sanctify items only when they are whole, and only full measurements, and from within them, and inside.

אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שאין דעתו להוסיף אבל דעתו להוסיף ראשון ראשון קודש

With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify only full measurements, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only when the priest’s initial intention was not to add to that which was already placed inside the vessel. But if his initial intention was to add, then each initial amount placed in the vessel becomes sacred, no matter how small.

תניא נמי הכי מלאין אין מלאין אלא שלימין אמר רבי יוסי אימתי בזמן שאין דעתו להוסיף אבל דעתו להוסיף ראשון ראשון קודש

This distinction is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify full measurements, full measurements are nothing other than whole measurements. Rabbi Yosei said: When are full measurements whole ones? It is at a time that the priest’s intention was not to add. But if his intention was to add, each initial amount is sacred.

אין כלי הלח מקדש [וכו׳] אמר רב ואיתימא רב אסי אין מקדשין ליקרב אבל מקדשין ליפסל

§ The mishna teaches that the service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items. With regard to this halakha, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items to permit them for sacrifice upon the altar, but they sanctify dry items in order for the items to be disqualified by them, i.e., dry items placed in such vessels may be disqualified by that which disqualifies only sanctified items, e.g., if they are touched by one who immersed that day, or if they emerged from the Temple courtyard.

איכא דמתני לה אהא אין מביאין מנחות ונסכים ומנחת בהמה וביכורים מן המדומע ואין צריך לומר מערלה וכלאי הכרם ואם הביא לא קדש אמר רב ואיתימא רב אסי לא קדש ליקרב אבל קדש ליפסל

There are those who teach this statement with regard to this halakha: One may not bring meal offerings, or libations, or meal offerings accompanying an animal, or first fruits, from a mixture containing teruma, since that which may not be consumed by all Jews may not be used for an offering. And needless to say, one may not bring these items from the fruit of a tree that is orla, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, from which it is prohibited to eat, or from diverse kinds sown in a vineyard, both of which are prohibited for consumption to priests as well. And if he brought an offering from them, it is not sanctified. With regard to this issue, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: It is not sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, but it is sanctified in order to be disqualified.

תנו רבנן כלי קדש שניקבו אין מתיכין אותן ואין מתיכין לתוכן אבר נפגמו אין מתקנין אותן סכין שנפגם אין משחיזין את פגימתה נשמטה אין מחזירין אותה אבא שאול אומר סכין מטרפת היתה במקדש ונמנו עליה כהנים וגנזוה

§ With regard to perforated vessels, the Sages taught: In the case of sacred vessels that were perforated, one may not melt them in order to seal the perforation, and one may not melt lead into them for such a purpose. If the vessels were damaged, one may not repair them. Concerning a knife that was damaged, one may not sharpen the spot of its damage. If the blade separated from the handle, one may not restore it. Abba Shaul says: There was a certain knife in the Temple whose metal was soft and easily damaged, such that when used it would often render animals prohibited, thereby disqualifying them. Accordingly, the priests voted concerning it, and elected to hide it.

תנו רבנן בגדי כהונה אין עושין אותם מעשה מחט אלא מעשה אורג שנאמר מעשה ארג נתגעלו אין מכבסין לא בנתר ולא באהל

The Sages taught: Priestly vestments are not fashioned by needlework, i.e., by stitching various parts together, but rather through woven work, whereby the entire garment is initially woven into one entity, as it is stated: “Woven work” (Exodus 28:32). If the garments were soiled one may not launder them, neither with natron nor with soap, two common detergents.

הא במים מכבסין אמר אביי הכי קאמר הוגעו במים מכבסין אותו בנתר ואהל

The Gemara asks: But may it be inferred from this that with water one may launder the priestly vestments? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If the dirtied garments have only reached the point where laundering them with water alone would suffice, one may launder them with natron and soap, as they are not considered soiled.

הוגעו לנתר ואהל אף במים אין מכבסים ויש אומרים אין מכבסין אותן כל עיקר שאין עניות במקום עשירות

But if the garments became so dirty that they reached a point that laundering them would require the use of natron or soap, then one may not launder them, even with water. And some say: One may not launder the priestly vestments at all, even if laundering them with water would suffice, because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., only priestly vestments that were clean as new should be worn, as is befitting the Temple service, and those that were laundered should not be worn.

תנו רבנן מעיל כולו של תכלת היה שנאמר ויעש את מעיל האפוד כליל תכלת שוליו כיצד מביא תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני שזורין ועושה אותן כמין רימונים שלא פיתחו פיהן וכמין קונאות של קנסות שבראשי תינוקות

§ With regard to the priestly vestments, the Sages taught in a baraita: The robe of the High Priest was sewn entirely of sky-blue wool, as it is stated: “And he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of sky-blue wool” (Exodus 39:22). With regard to its skirts, concerning which it states: “And they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky blue, and purple, and scarlet, twined” (Exodus 39:24), how were they fashioned? The tailor brings sky-blue wool, and purple wool, and scarlet wool, which are twined together, and fashions them to appear as pomegranates that have not opened their mouths, i.e., they are sewn in the appearance of pomegranates that are not yet ripe enough for the crown on top to open, and as the cones [konaot] of the helmets [kenasot] that are found on the heads of children.

ומביא שבעים ושנים זגין שבהן שבעים ושנים עינבלין ותולה בהן שלשים וששה בצד זה ושלשים וששה מצד זה רבי דוסא אומר משום רבי יהודה שלשים וששה היו שמונה עשרה מצד זה ושמנה עשרה מצד זה

And in order to fulfill that which is stated: “And they made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranates” (Exodus 39:25), he brings seventy-two bells, i.e., the outer part of bells, made from gold, that contain inside them seventy-two bell clappers, and he suspends them on the skirts: Thirty-six of each, i.e., pomegranates and bells, on this side of the robe, and thirty-six of each on that side, as the verse states: “A bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe around it” (Exodus 39:26). Rabbi Dosa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: There were thirty-six bells suspended around the skirt, eighteen from this side and eighteen from that side.

אמר רבי עיניני בר ששון כמחלוקת כאן כך מחלוקת במראות נגעים דתנן מראות נגעים רבי דוסא בן הרכינס אומר שלשים וששה עקביא בן מהללאל אומר שבעים ושנים

Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Just as there is a disagreement here between tanna’im with regard to the total number of bells suspended around the skirt of the robe of the High Priest, so is there a disagreement between tanna’im with regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 1:4): With regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: There are thirty-six, while Akavya ben Mahalalel says: There are seventy-two.

ואמר רבי עיניני בר ששון למה נסמכה פרשת קרבנות לפרשת בגדי כהונה לומר לך מה קרבנות מכפרין אף בגדי כהונה מכפרין

§ The Gemara cites another statement of this sage: And Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus, chapter 8)? It was juxtaposed to tell you that just as offerings effect atonement, so too, priestly vestments effect atonement.

כתונת מכפרת על שפיכות דם שנאמר וישחטו שעיר עזים ויטבלו את הכתנת בדם מכנסים מכפרת על גילוי עריות שנאמר ועשה להם מכנסי בד [לכסות (את) בשר ערוה] מצנפת מכפרת על גסי הרוח מנין אמר רבי חנינא יבא דבר שבגובה ויכפר על גובה

The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.

אבנט מכפר על הרהור הלב היכא דאיתיה חושן מכפר על הדינין שנאמר ועשית חשן משפט אפוד מכפר על עבודה זרה שנאמר אין אפוד ותרפים

Rabbi Inini bar Sason continues: The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart. The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is stated: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is stated: “And without ephod or teraphim” (Hosea 3:4), meaning that when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. Therefore, it may be inferred that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship.

מעיל מכפר על לשון הרע מנין אמר רבי חנינא יבא דבר שבקול ויכפר על קול הרע וציץ מכפר על עזות פנים בציץ כתיב והיה על מצח אהרן ובעזות פנים כתיב ומצח אשה זונה היה לך

The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech. From where is this known? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that produces sound, i.e., the robe, which has bells, shall come and atone for an evil sound. And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. This is derived from the fact that with regard to the frontplate it is written: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead” (Exodus 28:38), and with regard to brazenness it is written: “And you had a harlot’s forehead” (Jeremiah 3:3).

איני והא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שני דברים לא מצינו להן כפרה בקרבנות ומצינו לו כפרה ממקום אחר ואלו הן שפיכות דמים ולשון הרע

The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the priestly vestments atone for these sins? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: There are two matters that we do not find for them an atonement with offerings, but we find for them an atonement from another place, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech.

שפיכות דמים מעגלה ערופה ולשון הרע מקטרת דתני רב חנניה מנין לקטרת שמכפרת שנאמר ויתן את הקטרת ויכפר על העם

With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the identity of the murderer is not known. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the neck of a heifer must be broken as an atonement for the murder. And with regard to malicious speech, its atonement comes from incense, as Rav Ḥananya teaches in a baraita: From where is it derived that the incense effects atonement? As it is stated after the Israelites spoke slanderously against Moses and Aaron and a plague was sent against them: “And he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12).

ותני דבי רבי ישמעאל על מה קטרת מכפרת על לשון הרע יבא דבר שבחשאי ויכפר על מעשה חשאי

The Gemara continues: And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: For what does incense effect atonement? It effects atonement for malicious speech, in order that an item that is offered in private, i.e., the incense, which is offered by a priest acting alone, shall come and atone for an action generally occurring in private, i.e., malicious speech.

קשיא לשון הרע אלשון הרע קשיא שפיכות דמים אשפיכות דמים

Accordingly, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is only the incense that effects atonement for that transgression. Likewise, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to bloodshed and that which is stated with regard to bloodshed, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the tunic effects atonement for bloodshed, whereas according to the baraita only the heifer whose neck is broken effects atonement for it.

לא קשיא הא דידיע מאן קטליה הא דלא ידיע מאן קטליה אי דידיע מאן קטליה בר קטלא הוא במזיד ולא אתרו ביה

The Gemara answers: With regard to bloodshed, it is not difficult, as this, the tunic, effects atonement for bloodshed in an instance where it is known who killed the victim, and this, the heifer, effects atonement in an instance where it is not known who killed the victim. The Gemara challenges: If it is known who killed the victim, that man is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community otherwise, as it is stated: “And no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: It is referring to a case where he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him of the consequences of committing murder. Therefore, the court may not execute him, as no earthly punishment may be administered without forewarning.

ולשון הרע אלשון הרע נמי לא קשיא הא בצינעא הא בפרהסיא

And with regard to the contradiction between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, it is also not difficult. This, the incense, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in private, whereas this, the robe, on which the bells that produce noise are placed, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in public.

הדרן עלך המזבח מקדש