מנחות כז

מנחות כז

דְּעַל הָעֵצִים כְּתִיב.

as “upon [al] the wood” is written, and not: Next to the wood.

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, מַאי? הָכָא נָמֵי ״עַל״ בְּסָמוּךְ, אוֹ דִלְמָא ״עַל הָעֵצִים״ דּוּמְיָא דְּ״עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – מָה הָתָם עַל מַמָּשׁ, אַף הָכָא נָמֵי עַל מַמָּשׁ? תֵּיקוּ.

When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says in the mishna (96a) that the term “upon [al]” (see Numbers 2:20) means adjacent to. According to that tanna, what is the halakha in this case? Is it explained that here, too, the phrase “upon [al] the wood” can mean adjacent to the wood? Or perhaps, the phrase “upon [al] the wood that is on the fire upon the altar” teaches that “upon the wood” is to be understood as similar to “upon the altar”: Just as there “upon the altar” is meant literally, so too here, the phrase “upon the wood” is meant literally. The Gemara comments: No answer was found, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֶץ מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ, עִשָּׂרוֹן מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ, הַיַּיִן מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ, הַשֶּׁמֶן מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ.

MISHNA: With regard to the handful, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from rendering it permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was sacrificed, from qualifying as a proper meal offering. With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was poured, from qualifying as a proper libation. With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it, which was added, from being a sufficient measure of oil.

הַסּוֹלֶת וְהַשֶּׁמֶן מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.

With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״מְלֹא קֻמְצוֹ״ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי.

GEMARA: What is the reason that the failure to sacrifice the minority of the handful disqualifies the entire offering? This is derived from the fact that the verse states “his handful” twice, once with regard to the voluntary meal offering (Leviticus 2:2) and once with regard to the meal offering of a sinner (Leviticus 5:12), and any halakha repeated in the verses is deemed indispensable.

עִשָּׂרוֹן מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ, מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִסׇּלְתָּהּ״, שֶׁאִם חָסְרָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פְּסוּלָה.

The mishna teaches: With regard to a tenth of an ephah of flour brought as a meal offering, failure to sacrifice the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper meal offering. What is the reason? The verse states: “The priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour” (Leviticus 2:2). The usage of the term “of its fine flour” instead of: Of the fine flour, teaches that if any amount of its flour was missing, it is not valid.

הַיַּיִן מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ, ״כָּכָה״.

The mishna teaches: With regard to the wine poured as a libation, failure to pour the minority of it prevents the majority of it from qualifying as a proper libation. What is the reason? The verse states concerning the libations: “So shall it be done” (Numbers 15:11). The term “so” indicates that the libations must be sacrificed exactly in the manner described, without any deviation.

הַשֶּׁמֶן מִיעוּטוֹ מְעַכֵּב אֶת רוּבּוֹ, דְּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים – ״כָּכָה״, וּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה – אָמַר קְרָא: ״וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״, שֶׁאִם חָסַר כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – פְּסוּלָה.

The mishna teaches: With regard to the log of oil that is required for the meal offering, failure to add the minority of it prevents the majority of it from being a sufficient measure of oil. In the case of the oil of the meal offering that accompanies the libations, this halakha is learned from the term: “So” (Numbers 15:11), stated with regard to the libations. And in the case of the log of oil that accompanies a voluntary meal offering, the verse states: “And of its oil” (Leviticus 2:2), demonstrating that if any amount of its oil was missing, it is not valid.

הַשֶּׁמֶן וְהַסּוֹלֶת מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, ״מִסׇּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״, ״מִגִּרְשָׂהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ״.

The mishna teaches: With regard to the fine flour and the oil, failure to bring each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the fact that the two are juxtaposed in the verse: “The priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:2), and the fact that this requirement is repeated in the verse: “Of its groats, and of its oil” (Leviticus 2:16), teaches that each is indispensable.

הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, ״עַל כׇּל לְבוֹנָתָהּ״, ״וְאֵת כׇּל הַלְּבוֹנָה אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּנְחָה״.

The mishna teaches: With regard to the handful and the frankincense, failure to burn each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. The halakha that each is indispensable is derived from the repetition of the mention of the two together in the verse, as it is written: “The priest shall remove of it a handful of its fine flour and of its oil, as well as all of its frankincense” (Leviticus 2:2), and again with regard to the meal offering of a sinner it is stated: “And all the frankincense which is upon the meal offering” (Leviticus 6:8).

מַתְנִי׳ שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ.

MISHNA: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

שְׁנֵי סְדָרִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other.

שְׁנֵי מִינִים שֶׁבַּנָּזִיר, שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁבַּפָּרָה, וְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה, וְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב, (וארבע) [וְאַרְבָּעָה] שֶׁבַּמְּצוֹרָע – מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה.

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite: The bread and wafers (see Numbers 6:15); the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer: The cedar, hyssop, and scarlet wool (see Numbers 19:6); and the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering: The loaves, wafers, loaves soaked in hot water, and leavened bread (see Leviticus 7:12); and the four species of the lulav: The lulav, etrog, myrtle, and willow (see Leviticus 23:40); and the four species that are used in the purification process of the leper: The cedar, hyssop, scarlet wool, and birds (see Leviticus 14:4), failure to bring each of the components prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

שֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁבַּפָּרָה מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, שֶׁבַע הַזָּיוֹת שֶׁעַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, שֶׁעַל הַפָּרֹכֶת, שֶׁעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב – מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ.

With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary (see Numbers 19:4), failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves (see Leviticus 16:14–15), the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and from all other inner sin offerings, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

גְּמָ׳ שְׁנֵי שְׂעִירֵי יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה – חוּקָּה.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, the absence of each goat prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse that states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And it shall be a statute forever” (Leviticus 16:29), since wherever the term “statute” appears concerning a sacrificial rite, it signifies that the rite is an indispensable requirement.

שְׁנֵי כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת מְעַכְּבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה – הֲוָיָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת – הֲוָיָה.

The mishna teaches: With regard to the two sheep brought together with the meal offering of the two loaves on Shavuot, failure to bring each of the sheep prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other. This is derived from the verse: “They shall be holy” (Leviticus 23:20), since the employment of a term of being indicates an indispensable requirement. Similarly, with regard to the two loaves brought on Shavuot, the reason failure to bring each of the loaves prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse states: “They shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17), employing a term of being.

שְׁנֵי סְדָרִין – חוּקָּה, שְׁנֵי בָּזִיכִין – חוּקָּה, הַסְּדָרִין וְהַבָּזִיכִין – חוּקָּה.

With regard to the two arrangements of the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the arrangements prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the two bowls of frankincense that accompany the shewbread, the reason failure to place each of the bowls prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them (see Leviticus 24:9). With regard to the arrangements of the shewbread and the bowls of frankincense, the reason failure to bring each of them prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the other is that the verse employs the term statute concerning them, as that verse addresses each of these two components.

שְׁנֵי מִינִים שֶׁבַּנָּזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁבַּפָּרָה – חוּקָּה.

With regard to the two types of loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written with regard to the nazirite: “So he must do after the law of his naziriteship” (Numbers 6:21), demonstrating that must bring his offerings precisely as detailed in the verse. With regard to the three species that are part of the rite of the red heifer, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them: “This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2).

אַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה, דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו״, וְאָמַר מָר: ״שְׁלָמָיו״ – לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.

With regard to the four types of loaves that accompany the thanks offering, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the thanks offering is juxtaposed to the offerings of a nazirite, as it is written with regard to the thanks offering: “With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving” (Leviticus 7:13). And the Master said: The term “his peace offerings” serves to include the loaves of the peace offering of a nazirite, and it has already been demonstrated that with regard to the loaves that accompany the offerings of a nazirite, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others.

וְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע, דִּכְתִיב: ״זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע״, וְאַרְבָּעָה שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב – ״וּלְקַחְתֶּם״, לְקִיחָה תַּמָּה.

And with regard to the four species that are in the purification process of the leper, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as it is written: “This shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2), and the term “shall be” indicates an indispensable requirement. And with regard to the four species of the lulav, each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, as the verse states: “And you shall take” [ulkaḥtem]” (Leviticus 23:40), which alludes to: A complete taking [lekiḥa tamma], comprising all four species.

אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין לוֹ, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לוֹ – אֵין מְעַכְּבִין.

§ Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says: The mishna taught that the four species of the lulav are necessary for the fulfillment of the mitzva only in a case where one did not have all four species; but if one has all four species, failure to take each of the components does not prevent fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, and he fulfills the mitzva by taking each species individually.

מֵיתִיבִי: אַרְבָּעָה מִינִין שֶׁבַּלּוּלָב, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת, וּשְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם אֵין עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת; הָעוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת יִהְיוּ זְקוּקִין לְשֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין, וְשֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת יִהְיוּ זְקוּקִין לְעוֹשִׂין פֵּירוֹת, וְאֵין אָדָם יוֹצֵא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן בַּאֲגוּדָּה אֶחָת.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: With regard to the four species of the lulav, two of them, the lulav and etrog, produce fruit, and two of them, the myrtle and willow, do not produce fruit. Those that produce fruit have a bond with those that do not produce fruit, and those that do not produce fruit have a bond with those that produce fruit. And a person does not fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav until they are all bound together in a single bundle.

וְכֵן יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהַרְצָאָה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ כּוּלָּן בַּאֲגוּדָּה אֶחָת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַבּוֹנֶה בַשָּׁמַיִם מַעֲלוֹתָיו וַאֲגֻדָּתוֹ עַל אֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ״.

And so too, when the Jewish people fast and pray for acceptance of their repentance, this is not accomplished until they are all bound together in a single bundle, as it is stated: “It is He that builds His upper chambers in the Heaven, and has established His bundle upon the earth” (Amos 9:6), which is interpreted as stating that only when the Jewish people are bound together are they established upon the earth. This baraita contradicts Rav Ḥanan bar Rava’s statement, since it teaches that the four species of the lulav must be taken together in order for one to fulfill his obligation of taking the lulav.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: לוּלָב בֵּין אָגוּד בֵּין שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָגוּד – כָּשֵׁר; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָגוּד – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָגוּד – פָּסוּל.

The Gemara answers: Whether the different species must be taken together is a dispute between tanna’im; as it is taught in a baraita: A lulav, whether it is bound with the myrtle and willow or whether it is not bound, is fit. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is bound, it is fit; if it is not bound, it is unfit.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? גָּמַר קִיחָה קִיחָה מֵ״אֲגוּדַּת אֵזוֹב״,

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: By means of a verbal analogy, he derives the term taking, written with regard to the four species, from the term taking written with regard to the bundle of hyssop. It is written there, in the context of the sacrifice of the Paschal offering in Egypt: “Take a bundle of hyssop” (Exodus 12:22), and it is written here, with regard to the four species: “And you shall take for you on the first day the fruit of a beautiful tree, branches of a date palm, boughs of dense-leaved trees, and willows of the brook” (Leviticus 23:40).

מָה לְהַלָּן בַּאֲגוּדָּה – אַף כָּאן בַּאֲגוּדָּה. וְרַבָּנַן, לָא גָּמְרִי ״קִיחָה קִיחָה״.

Just as there, with regard to the Paschal offering, the mitzva to take the hyssop is specifically in a bundle, so too here, the mitzva to take the four species is specifically in a bundle. The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: They do not derive the meaning of the term taking from the meaning of the term taking by means of the verbal analogy.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: לוּלָב מִצְוָה לְאוֹגְדוֹ, וְאִם לֹא אֲגָדוֹ – כָּשֵׁר? כְּמַאן? אִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֹא אֲגָדוֹ אַמַּאי כָּשֵׁר? אִי רַבָּנַן, מַאי מִצְוָה?

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There is a mitzva to bind the myrtle and the willow together with the lulav, but if one did not bind it, it is fit? In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if one did not bind it, why is it fit? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, what mitzva is one fulfilling by binding it?

לְעוֹלָם רַבָּנַן, וּמַאי מִצְוָה? מִשּׁוּם ״זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ״.

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what mitzva is one fulfilling? The mitzva is due to the fact that it is stated: “This is my God and I will beautify Him” (Exodus 15:2), which is interpreted to mean that one should beautify himself before God in the performance of the mitzvot. The Rabbis agree that although failure to bind the three species does not render them unfit for performing the mitzva, the performance of the mitzva is more beautiful when the lulav is bound.

שֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁבַּפָּרָה מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ – חוּקָּה.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the heifer that the priest sprinkles opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others, since the term statute is written about them (see Numbers 19:2).

שֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁעַל בֵּין הַבַּדִּים, וְשֶׁעַל מִזְבַּח הַזָּהָב, וְשֶׁעַל הַפָּרוֹכֶת – מְעַכְּבוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ; דְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כְּתִיב חוּקָּה.

The mishna further teaches: With regard to the seven sprinklings of the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that are sprinkled on the Ark between the staves, and the sprinklings that are sprinkled on the golden altar on Yom Kippur, and the sprinklings from all other inner sin offerings that are sprinkled on the golden altar, and the seven sprinklings that are sprinkled on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, failure to sprinkle each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others. With regard to the sprinklings of Yom Kippur, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is that the term “statute” is written about the Yom Kippur service (see Leviticus 16:29).

דְּפַר כֹּהֵן מָשׁוּחַ, וּדְפַר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִיבּוּר, וְדִשְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה – כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְעָשָׂה לַפָּר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לְפַר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לִכְפּוֹל בְּהַזָּאוֹת,

With regard to the sprinklings of the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, and of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and those of the goats of idol worship, which are sprinkled on the Curtain and on the golden altar, the reason that each prevents fulfillment of the mitzva with the others is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin: “So shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering” of the anointed priest (Leviticus 4:20). Why must the verse state that the bull offering for an unwitting communal sin is sacrificed in the same manner as the bull of the anointed priest, when the Torah has already explicitly specified the manner in which the service should take place? The reason it states it is in order to repeat the command of the sprinklings,

שֶׁאִם חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

to teach that if one omitted one of the placements of blood, he has done nothing.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁבַּפָּרָה, שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן – בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת אֶל נֹכַח פְּנֵי אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד – פְּסוּלוֹת.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If the priest performed the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer improperly, either by performing them not for their own sake or performing them not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, they are not valid.

וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים, וְשֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, פְּסוּלוֹת; שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת, כְּשֵׁרוֹת.

But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled “before the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done “seven times before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they are performed not precisely toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, they are valid.

וְהָתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי פָּרָה: שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning the sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that if they were performed not for their own sake, they are not valid, but if they were performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, they are valid? Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult; this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

דְּתַנְיָא: מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעֲזָרָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, בְּמֵזִיד – עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר טְבוּל יוֹם וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַטְּמֵאִים.

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Kelim 1:10): With regard to those who have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, who entered the Temple courtyard unwittingly, they are liable to bring a sin offering. If they entered intentionally, then this is punishable by karet. And needless to say, the same applies to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed and all the others who are ritually impure and have not yet immersed.

וּטְהוֹרִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתָן, לַהֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ – בְּאַרְבָּעִים, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת – בְּמִיתָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ וּמִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת – בְּאַרְבָּעִים, וְאֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת – בְּמִיתָה.

And with regard to those who are pure who entered beyond their boundaries, i.e., beyond where it is permitted for them to enter, such as a priest who enters the Sanctuary for a purpose other than performing the Temple service, if one entered any part of the Sanctuary, he is liable to receive forty lashes. If he entered within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, i.e., into the Holy of Holies, or he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he entered any part of the Sanctuary or within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, he is liable to receive forty lashes; but if he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בְּהַאי קְרָא: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאַל יָבוֹא בְכׇל עֵת אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאָרוֹן וְלֹא יָמוּת״. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ – בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״ וְ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ – בְּ״לֹא יָמוּת״.

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die” (Leviticus 16:2). The Rabbis hold that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies and before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וּ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״ – בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, וְ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ – בְּ״לֹא יָמוּת״.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, and within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וְ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָל מִיחַיַּיב, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת מִבַּעְיָא? ״מִבֵּית הַפָּרֹכֶת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּמִיתָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the interpretation of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: If it should enter your mind to explain the verse as Rabbi Yehuda says, then let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and before the Ark Cover that he not die, and there is no need to write “within the Curtain,” and I would say: If one becomes liable to receive lashes for even entering the Sanctuary, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering within the Curtain? Why do I need the phrase “within the Curtain” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וְלָא כְּתַב ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קוֹדֶשׁ – מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת, אֲבָל הֵיכָל לָאו נָמֵי לָא. וְרַבָּנַן: הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דְּהֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ אִיקְּרִי ״קוֹדֶשׁ״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״.

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come “into the holy place” and did not write “within the Curtain,” I would say: What is the holy place? It is within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, but if one enters the Sanctuary he does not even violate a prohibition. And the Rabbis respond to this claim: You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called “the holy place,” as it is stated: “And the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33).

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וּ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרוֹכֶת״ בְּמִיתָה, ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ מִיבַּעְיָא? ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ בְּמִיתָה, ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״ בְּאַזְהָרָה.

And what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if it should enter your mind to explain as the Rabbis say, that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and within the Curtain that he not die, and there is no need to write “before the Ark Cover.” And I would say: If entering within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering before the Ark Cover? Why do I need the phrase “before the Ark Cover” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering before the Ark Cover is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, but entering within the Curtain merely violates a prohibition.

וְרַבָּנַן? [אִין] הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא צְרִיךְ, וְהַאי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ לְמַעוֹטֵי דֶּרֶךְ מְשׁוּפָּשׁ.

And the Rabbis understand: Indeed, it is so that in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it is not necessary for the verse to also state “before the Ark Cover.” And the reason that the Merciful One wrote “before [el penei] the Ark Cover” was in order to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path, as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת קֵדְמָה״ – זֶה בָּנָה אָב, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״פְּנֵי״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פְּנֵי קָדִים.

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught: With regard to the verse: “And he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [el penei] the Ark Cover to the east” (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: “Before [penei],” it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֵימָא קְרָא ״פְּנֵי״, מַאי ״אֶל״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״אֶל״ דַּוְקָא, וְרַבָּנַן – ״אֶל״ לָאו דַּוְקָא.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term “before [el penei] the Ark Cover” is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, let the verse say: Before [penei] the Ark Cover. What is the purpose of the word el? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven specifically if he entered directly before the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. And the Rabbis hold that the term “el” does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ דַּוְקָא, וְ״הִזָּה אֶל נֹכַח״ נָמֵי דַּוְקָא.

The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two baraitot with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the expression “before [el penei] the Ark Cover” teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: “And sprinkle of its blood toward [el] the front” (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

וְרַבָּנַן: מִדְּהָתָם לָאו דַּוְקָא, הָכָא נָמֵי לָאו דַּוְקָא.

And the Rabbis are of the opinion that from the fact that there the term el does not mean specifically that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, here too they hold that it is not meant specifically, and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִדְּ״אֶל״ דַּוְקָא, (אֶל נֹכַח) [עַל] נָמֵי דַּוְקָא? אֶלָּא דְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי דְּלָא הֲווֹ אָרוֹן וְכַפּוֹרֶת, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא עָבֵיד הַזָּאוֹת?

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood before [al penei] the Ark Cover” (Leviticus 16:14) should also mean that the sprinkling must be performed specifically upon the Ark Cover. But in the time of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, would Rabbi Yehuda then say that indeed the sprinklings were not performed? This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see Yoma 53b).

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – מְקוֹם הַמְקוּדָּשׁ לַקּוֹדֶשׁ.

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place [mikdash hakodesh]” (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [hakodesh], but even on the place that is dedicated [hamkudash] for the Ark [lakodesh].

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן,

The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the baraitot concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: