Zevachim 183

אבל לא גחלת של עץ ואי ס"ד כר"ש ס"ל אפילו גחלת של עץ נמי

but not a burning piece of wood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For that is Biblically forbidden.');">¹</span> Now if you think that he agrees with R'Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For though he intentionally extinguishes it, yet his work is not needed per se (v. n. 6.) , and R. Simeon permits such.');">²</span>

בדבר שאין מתכוין סבר לה כר"ש במלאכה שאינה צריכה לגופה סבר לה כרבי יהודה

- In respect to what is unintentional he holds with R'Simeon; but in the matter of work which is not needed per se,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., when one carries out a corpse on Sabbath into the street. He does not really want the corpse in the street, but merely wants it out of the house. Every case of extinguishing except that of a wick to make it easier for subsequent relighting, falls within this category, since with this exception extinguishing is always negative. R. Judah forbids such, and R. Simeon permits it.');">³</span> he agrees with R'Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence he permits the unintentional extinguishing on the altar, but forbids the unintentional extinguishing of a burning piece of wood.');">⁴</span>

אמר רב הונא נסכים שנטמאו עושה להן מערכה בפני עצמן ושורפן משום שנאמר (ויקרא ו, כג) בקודש באש תשרף תניא נמי הכי הדם והשמן והמנחות והנסכים שנטמאו עושה להן מערכה בפני עצמן ושורפן

R'Huna said: If a drink-offering [of wine] was defiled, one must make a separate fire for it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the pavement of the Temple court; but it must not be taken out.');">⁵</span> and burn it, for it is said, And every [sin-offering].

א"ל שמואל לרב חנא בגדתאה אייתי לי בי עשרה ואימא לך קמייהו נסכים שנטמאו עושה להן מערכה בפני עצמן ושורפן:

in the holy place. it shall be burnt with fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 23. The accents are disregarded in this rendering. In Pes. ');">⁶</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל התדיר</strong></big><br><br>

It was taught likewise: If blood, oil, meal-offerings or drink-offerings were defiled, a separate fire is made for them, and they are burnt. Samuel said to R'Hana of Baghdad: Bring me ten people and I will teach you in their presence:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably a proverbial expression, denoting emphasis and certainty.');">⁷</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>דם</strong></big> חטאת שנתז על הבגד הרי זה טעון כיבוס אע"פ שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנאכלות שנאמר (ויקרא ו, יט) במקום קדוש תאכל אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות טעונות כיבוס שנאמר תורת החטאת תורה אחת לכל החטאות

if drink-offerings were defiled, one makes a separate fire for them and burns them. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED ON TO A GARMENT, IT MUST BE WASHED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 20: And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place.');">⁸</span>

חטאת פסולה אין דמה טעון כיבוס בין שהיתה לה שעת הכושר ובין שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר איזו היא שהיתה לה שעת הכושר שלנה ושנטמאה ושיצאת ואיזו היא שלא היתה לה שעת הכושר שנשחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה ושקיבלו פסולין (וזרקו) את דמה:

THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS ONLY OF [SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN, FOR IT IS SAID, IN A HOLY PLACE SHALL IT BE EATEN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 19.');">⁹</span> YET BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SACRIFICES]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sin-offerings slaughtered in the inner sanctuary (hekal) ; these may not be eaten; v. Lev. IV, 1-12; 13-21.');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> דם חטאת (שמתה) כו' ואי תורה אחת לכל חטאות אפילו חטאת העוף נמי אלמה תניא יכול תהא דם חטאת העוף טעון כיבוס ת"ל (ויקרא ו, יח) זאת

NECESSITATE WASHING, FOR IT IS SAID, [THIS IS] THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI, 18; this is the superscription of the present passage containing this law of washing.');">¹¹</span> THERE IS ONE LAW FOR ALL SIN-OFFERINGS.

אמר ר"ל משום בר קפרא אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, יח) תשחט בנשחטות הכתוב מדבר

THE BLOOD OF A DISQUALIFIED SIN-OFFERING DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING, WHETHER IT HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS OR DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS. WHICH HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS?

ואימא בנאכלות הכתוב מדבר כדכתיב במקום קדוש תאכל אבל פנימיות לא רבי רחמנא תורת

ONE [WHOSE BLOOD] WAS KEPT OVERNIGHT, OR WAS DEFILED, OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. WHICH DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS?

אי הכי אפילו חטאת העוף נמי מיעט רחמנא זאת

ONE WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING IT]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or sprinkling its blood.');">¹²</span> AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR WHOSE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED BY UNFIT PERSONS.

ומה ראית מסתברא דחטאת [בהמה] פנימיות ה"ל לרבויי שכן בהמה שחיטת צפון וקבלת כלי

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED etc. If there is one law for all sin-offerings, even a bird sin-offering too [should be included]. Why then was it taught: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering requires washing; therefore it states, This is [the law of the sin-offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'This is' is a limitation, implying, only what is enumerated in the section.');">¹³</span> - Said Resh Lakish on Bar Kappara's authority. Scripture saith, shall [the sin-offering] be slaughtered:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁴</span> thus the Writ speaks [only] of those which are slaughtered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with shechitah, whereas a bird requires melikah.');">¹⁵</span> Yet say rather that the Writ speaks [only] of those which are eaten, as it is written, 'in a holy place shall it be eaten', but not inner [sin-offerings]? - The Divine Law included [them by writing] 'the law of'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One law for all.');">¹⁶</span> If so, even a bird sin-offering too [is included]? - The Divine Law expressed a limitation in 'this is'. And why do you prefer it thus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why apply the extension to inner sin-offerings and the limitation to birds, and not the reverse?');">¹⁷</span> - It is logical to include animal inner sin-offerings, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi reads, and Bah emends accordingly: it is slaughtered; it requires the north.');">¹⁸</span> [its blood is] received in a vessel;