Then let us [first] sprinkle within and then sprinkle without? — Since the sin-offering and the guilt-offering become unfit if their blood enters within, he could not give a general ruling. (1) FOR R. AKIBA MAINTAINED, etc. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: For example, to what may R. Akiba's ruling be compared? To a disciple who was mixing [wine] for his master with hot water, (2) when he [the master] said to him, Mix me [a drink]. With what? (3) he enquired. Are we not occupied with hot water? he replied; now then [I mean] with either hot or cold. (4) So here too: consider: we are discussing the sin-offering: (5) for what purpose then does the Divine Law write ‘sinoffering’? (6) [To teach:] I do not mean a sinoffering [alone], but all sacrifices. (7) To this R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: Consider: all sacrifices are included in respect of scouring and rinsing; why then does the Divine Law write ‘sin-offering’? (8) Hence you may infer from this: only the sin-offering, but nothing else. This then can only be compared to a disciple who was mixing [a drink] for his master with either hot or cold water, when he said to him, Mix it for me with hot water only! — Rather, R. Akiba's reason is that ‘and every sin-offering’ is written where ‘[and] a sinoffering’ [would suffice]. (9) For it was taught: ‘A sin-offering’: I know [this] only [of] a sinoffering; how do we know [it of] most sacred sacrifices [in general]? Because it says, ‘Every sin-offering’. How do we know [it of] lesser sacrifices? Because it says, ‘And every sinoffering’: this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: Even if you go on including all day, I will pay no heed to you. (10) Rather: ‘a sin-offering’: I only know [this of] a private sin-offering: (11) whence do we know [it of] a public sin-offering? Because it says, ‘Every sin-offering’. Again, I know it only of a male sin-offering: whence do I know [it of] a female sin-offering? Because it says. ‘And every’. It is just the reverse! (12) — Rather, this is what he means: I only know [it of] a female sin-offering: whence do I know [it of] a male sin-offering? From the text, ‘And every sin-offering’. Now, does R. Jose the Galilean hold that this text comes for this purpose? Surely it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: The whole passage speaks only of the bullocks which were to be burnt and the he-goats which were to be burnt, and its purpose is [i] to teach that when they are disqualified they must be burnt before the Temple; and [ii] to impose a negative injunction against eating them. (13) Said they to him: As to an [outer] sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost [sanctuary], whence do we know [that it is disqualified]? Said he to them: [From the verse,] Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within? (14) — He argues on R. Akiba's contention. (15) MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SINOFFERING WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS AND ONE OF THEM WENT WITHOUT, (16) THE INSIDE ONE IS FIT. (17) IF ONE OF THEM ENTERED WITHIN, (18) R. JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARES THE OUTER ONE (19) FIT; (20) BUT THE SAGES DISQUALIFY IT. SAID R. JOSE THE GALILEAN: IF THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DISQUALIFIES, [VIZ.,] WITHOUT, (21) YOU DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT AS WHAT WENT OUT; (21) THEN THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DOES NOT DISQUALIFY, [VIZ.,] WITHIN, (22) IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT WE DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT (23) AS WHAT ENTERED WITHIN? IF IT ENTERED WITHIN TO MAKE ATONEMENT, (24) EVEN IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT MAKE ATONEMENT, (25) IT IS UNFIT: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. R. SIMEON SAID: [IT IS NOT UNFIT] UNLESS HE MAKES ATONEMENT. R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE TOOK IT IN UNWITTINGLY, (26) IT IS FIT. FOR ALL UNFIT BLOOD WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT THE ALTAR [I.E., SPRINKLED] THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, (27) SAVE FOR UNCLEAN [BLOOD]. FOR THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THAT WHICH IS UNCLEAN, BUT DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR WHAT GOES OUT. (28) GEMARA. It was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: It is a kal wa-homer: If the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies. [viz.,] without, the blood without does not disqualify that which is within; (29) then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify. [viz.,] within, is it not logical that the blood within does not disqualify that which is without? Said they to him, Lo, it says, [And every sin-offering] whereof any of the blood is brought [into the tent of meeting... shall be burnt with fire]: (30) [this implies,] even part of its blood. Said he to them: Then you now have a kal wa-homer in respect of [blood] that goes out; if the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify [viz.,] within, yet the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without; where intention does disqualify, [viz.,] without, it is not logical that the blood without disqualifies [the blood] within? Said they to him: Lo, it says, whereof [any of the blood] is brought [into, etc.]: that which enters within disqualifies, but that which goes out does not disqualify. Now, let intention [to sprinkle] within31 disqualify, a fortiori: if though (32) blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, yet intention without (33) disqualifies; then seeing that the blood within does disqualify the blood without, is it not logical that intention within disqualifies? Lo, it says: On the third day: (34)

---

(1). ↑ That the blood should be sprinkled first within and then without, since this would not apply to these two. Therefore his view is not stated at all.
(2). ↑ Their wine was too strong to be drunk without dilution.
(3). ↑ Hot or cold water.
(4). ↑ As you were actually mixing wine with hot water, I had no need to say anything at all. Therefore when I told you to mix me a drink, I meant that it could be with either hot or cold water (Tosaf.).
(5). ↑ The whole section in Lev. VI, 19-23 q.v. treats of the sin-offering.
(6). ↑ Ibid. 23: And every sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place (i.e., an outer sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar) shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.
(7). ↑ Interpreting: And even every sin-offering, although some sin-offerings must be brought within, and how much the more other sacrifices!
(8). ↑ Lev. VI, 21 states: But the earthen vessel wherein it (sc. the sin-offering) is sodden shall be broken; and if it be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. The following verse states ‘it is most holy’ from which it is inferred infra 96b that the law of scouring and rinsing applies to all sacrifices. Hence at this stage (v. 22) we are already treating of all sacrifices; if then v. (23) is to apply likewise to all, Scripture should simply write: And that whereof any of the blood, etc.
(9). ↑ Lit., ‘R. Akiba's reason is from sin-offering, and every sin-offering.’
(10). ↑ I reject your view that ‘and’ and ‘every’ are extensions which include other kinds of sacrifices, seeing that the passage speaks of sin-offerings only.
(11). ↑ For this section is followed by sections on the guilt-offering and the peace- and thanks-offerings, which were private sacrifices.
(12). ↑ The usual sin-offering is a female, and no extension is needed to include it.
(13). ↑ This refers to the verse under discussion, which the Rabbis relate to an outer sin-offering whose blood was carried into the inner court, thereby disqualifying it. But R. Jose the Galilean relates it to an inner sin-offering, e.g., the bullock brought when the entire congregation sins in ignorance (v. Lev. IV, (13) f). Hence he interprets: And every sin-offering whereof any of the blood is (rightly) brought into the tent of meeting, etc. shall not be eaten. Now this is superfluous in respect of a valid sacrifice, since it is explicitly stated in IV, 21: and he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it. Consequently, the verse must mean that if it became unfit through going outside its legitimate boundary or through defilement, it must be burnt in front of the Birah (the Temple), and not carried ‘without the camp’. i.e., beyond the Temple Mount. Further, this prohibits the eating of its flesh by a negative injunction, violation of which involves flagellation (Lev. IV, (21) merely contains an affirmative precept, the disregard of which is not punished by flagellation). Thus R. Jose the Galilean does not relate this text to outer sin-offerings at all.
(14). ↑ Lev. X, 18; v. supra 10b.
(15). ↑ He personally holds that it refers to inner sinofferings. But he argues that even on R. Akiba's view that it refers to outer sin-offerings, the extension of ‘and’ and ‘every’ must apply to sinofferings likewise, not to other sacrifices.
(16). ↑ Sc. the Temple court.
(17). ↑ One can sprinkle the blood in it, and the sacrifice is valid.
(18). ↑ Into the Hekal, the inner sanctum.
(19). ↑ I.e., the one that remained in the Temple court.
(20). ↑ For sprinkling.
(21). ↑ An intention at the shechitah to sprinkle the blood without the Temple court disqualifies the sacrifice. Yet if one actually carried one goblet without, we do not regard the other goblet as though it too had been carried without, for the first clause states, THE INSIDE ONE IS FIT.
(22). ↑ The intention to sprinkle the blood within, in the Hekal, does not disqualify the sacrifice.
(23). ↑ V. p. 389, n. 7.
(24). ↑ If it was carried into the Hekal for sprinkling.
(25). ↑ He did not actually sprinkle it.
(26). ↑ Not knowing that it was forbidden.
(27). ↑ Make it fit.
(28). ↑ v. supra 23b.
(29). ↑ As in the Mishnah.
(30). ↑ Lev. VI, 23.
(31). ↑ I.e., the intention to take the blood into the Hekal.
(32). ↑ Lit., ‘where’.
(33). ↑ Sc. the intention to sprinkle the blood without.
(34). ↑ Lev. VII, 17.