Zevachim 163
וניתיב לפנים והדר ניתיב לחוץ כיון דאיכא חטאת ואשם דכי נכנס דמן פסולין לא פסיקא ליה:
<br> 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. <br>
שהיה ר"ע אומר [וכו']: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משל למה הדבר דומה לתלמיד שמזג לרבו בחמין ואמר לו מזוג לי אמר לו במה אמר לו לא בחמין אנו עסוקין עכשיו בין בחמין בין בצונן
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, when he [the master] said to him, Mix me [a drink]. With what? he enquired. Are we not occupied with hot water? he replied; now then [I mean] with either hot or cold. So here too: consider: we are discussing the sin-offering: for what purpose then does the Divine Law write 'sin-offering'? [To teach:] I do not mean a sin-offering [alone], but all sacrifices. 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'? 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 sin-offering' [would suffice]. For it was taught: 'A sin-offering': I know [this] only [of] a sin-offering; how do we know [it of] most sacred sacrifices [in general]? Because it says, 'Every sin-offering'. How do we know [it
הכא נמי מכדי בחטאת עסקינן ואתי חטאת דכתב רחמנא למה לי אלא לאו חטאת קאמינא לה אלא כל קדשים
of] lesser sacrifices? Because it says, 'And every sin-offering': 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. Rather: 'a sin-offering': I only know [this of] a private sin-offering: 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! - 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'.
מתקיף לה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מכדי איתרבו כל קדשים לגבי מזבח לענין מריקה ושטיפה; חטאת דכתב רחמנא למה לי ש"מ חטאת אין מידי אחרינא לא
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. 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? - He argues on R. Akiba's contention. <br>
והא לא דמיא אלא לתלמיד שמזג לרבו בין בחמין בין בצונן אמר לו אל תמזוג לי אלא חמין
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS AND ONE OF THEM WENT WITHOUT, THE INSIDE ONE IS FIT. IF ONE OF THEM ENTERED WITHIN, R. JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARES THE OUTER ONE FIT; BUT THE SAGES DISQUALIFY IT. SAID R. JOSE THE GALILEAN: IF THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DISQUALIFIES, [VIZ.,] WITHOUT, YOU DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT AS WHAT WENT OUT; THEN THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DOES NOT DISQUALIFY, [VIZ.,] WITHIN, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT WE DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT AS WHAT ENTERED WITHIN? IF IT ENTERED WITHIN TO MAKE ATONEMENT, EVEN IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT MAKE ATONEMENT, 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, IT IS FIT. FOR ALL UNFIT BLOOD WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT THE ALTAR [I.E., SPRINKLED] THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE, SAVE FOR UNCLEAN [BLOOD]. FOR THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THAT WHICH IS UNCLEAN, BUT DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR WHAT GOES OUT. <br>
אלא טעמא דרבי עקיבא מחטאת וכל חטאת דתניא חטאת אין לי אלא חטאת; קדשי קדשים מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ו, כג) כל חטאת קדשים קלים מנין ת"ל וכל חטאת דברי רבי עקיבא
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; 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]: [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] within disqualify, a fortiori: if though blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, yet intention without 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: <br>