Zevachim 184

וקרן ואצבע וחודה ואישים

[its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e , the emurim are burnt on the altar. The inner sin-offering has all these in common with the outer, whereas the bird sin-offering is unlike the outer in all these respects.');">¹</span> On the contrary, include rather the bird sin-offering, because it is an outer [offering], like itself, and eaten, like itself? - Those [points of similarity] are more.

אדרבה חטאת העוף הוה ליה לרבויי שכן חוץ כמותה ואכילה כמותה הנך נפישין

R'Joseph said, Scripture saith, [The priest]. shall eat it:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 19.');">²</span>

רב יוסף אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, יא) יאכלנה לזו ולא לאחרת בנאכלות מיעט הכתוב

this one shall he eat, but not another; thus the Writ excluded of those which are eaten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It' sing., implies that the passage speaks only of one of the sin-offerings which may be eaten; hence the bird sin-offering is excluded.');">³</span> Then what is the purpose of 'this is'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you already have a limitation in 'it'.');">⁴</span>

ואלא זאת ל"ל אי לאו זאת הוי אמינא יאכלנה אורחיה דקרא קמ"ל

- If not for 'this is' I would say that 'shall eat it' is the style of Scripture;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not a limitation at all.');">⁵</span> hence this informs us [otherwise]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now that we know from 'this is' that a limitation is intended, 'shall eat it' teaches that the limitation concerns those which are eaten.');">⁶</span>

רבה אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, כ) אשר יזה בהזאות הכתוב מדבר

Rabbah said, Scripture saith, and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]: hence the Writ speaks of those which are sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Haza'ah, from which yazzeh is derived, is written only in connection with the inner sin-offerings, but not in connection with the outer sin-offerings, where zarak is written (both haza'ah and zerikah denote sprinkling, but the latter implies with more force than the former) . Hence the Writ refers primarily to inner sin-offerings, and it is the outer sin-offerings which are included by 'the law of', implying one law for all.');">⁷</span> But surely we learnt: THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS OF [THE SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shews that it refers primarily to outer sin-offerings.');">⁸</span>

והתניא אע"פ שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנאכלות לענין מריקה ושטיפה אבל לענין כיבוס אשר יזה כתיב

- This is what [the Tanna] means: Although Scripture speaks of [the sin-offerings] which are eaten, that is only in respect of scouring and rinsing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VI, 21.');">⁹</span> but in respect to washing, 'and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות אחד הפנימיות ואחד הנאכלות מיבעי ליה תני אחד הפנימיות ואחד הנאכלות

If so, [instead of saying BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SIN-OFFERINGS]. he should say.

אי הכי חטאת העוף נמי מיעט רחמנא זאת אי הכי חיצונה נמי לא ריבה רחמנא תורת

Both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The more obvious should be mentioned first, and according to Rabbah that is the inner sin-offering.');">¹¹</span> - Learn, both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten.

ומה ראית מסתברא חטאת בהמה הוה ליה לרבויי שכן בהמה שחיטת צפון וקבלת כלי וקרן ואצבע וחודה ואישים

If so, the bird sin-offering too [is included]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If yazzeh shews that inner sin-offerings are primarily meant, the same should apply to a bird sin-offering, as this word is written in connection with it too.');">¹²</span> - The Divine Law expressed a limitation in 'this is'.

אדרבה חטאת העוף הול לרבויי שכן הזאה כמותה הנך נפישין

If so, an outer [sin-offering] too is not [included]? - The Divine Law expressed an extension in 'the law of'. And why do you prefer it thus? - It is logical to include an animal sin-offering, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north; [its blood is] received in a vessel; [its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire.

בעי רבי אבין חטאת העוף שהכניס דמה בצוארה בפנים מהו צוארה ככלי שרת דמי ומיפסיל

On the contrary, include the bird sin-offering, since it requires haza'ah, like itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. like the inner sin-offering.');">¹³</span> - Those [points of similarity] are more.

או דלמא כצואר בהמה מדמה אמר רחמנא ולא בשרה ת"ש פירכסה ונכנסה לפנים וחזרה כשירה הא הכניסה פסולה

R'Abin asked: What if one took the blood of a bird sin-offering within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the hekal.');">¹⁴</span> by its neck?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in a service-vessel; but its neck was taken within and ipso facto the blood too. Is the sacrifice disqualified under the law forbidding the blood of an outer sin-offering to be taken within (v. Lev. VI, 23) , or not?');">¹⁵</span>

וליטעמיך גבי קדשי קדשים דקתני פירכסה ויצאה לדרום וחזרה כשרה הא הוציאה פסולה

Is its neck like a service vessel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no service vessel is required in its case, the blood being sprinkled straight from the throat, the throat itself may take the place of a service vessel.');">¹⁶</span> and so it [the sacrifice] is disqualified; or perhaps it is like an animal's neck, while the Divine Law said, [And every sin-offering], whereof any of the blood [is brought into the tent of meeting.

אלא האי יצתה לחוץ איצטריכא ליה ה"נ יצתה לחוץ איצטריכא ליה

shall be burnt with fire],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., 23.');">¹⁷</span> [implying] of its blood, but not of its flesh!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only when the blood alone is taken in, sc. in a service vessel, is the sacrifice disqualified, but not when it is taken in by means of the flesh.');">¹⁸</span>

בעי רבי אבין נשפך על הרצפה ואספה מהו

- Come and hear: If it [the bird] struggled, entered within<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into the hekal.');">¹⁹</span> and then returned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its head was nipped near the hekal, and in its death struggles it entered therein.');">²⁰</span>

אצרוכיה הוא דלא אצרכיה רחמנא כלי שרת והלכך אוספו וכשר או דלמא מיפסל פסל ביה רחמנא כלי שרת והלכך אוספו ופסול

it is fit. Hence, if, however, [the priest] took it in, it disqualified.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This assumes that only when it entered itself is it fit.');">²¹</span>

אמר רבא ת"ש יכול יהא דם חטאת העוף טעון כיבוס תלמוד לומר זאת ואי ס"ד מיפסל פסיל ביה רחמנא תיפוק לי דהא אפסיל לה באויר כלי

Then according to your reasoning, when it is taught in connection with most sacred sacrifices, If it struggled and entered the south<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The south side of the Temple court; it was killed in the north.');">²²</span> and then returned, it is fit; [will you infer], but if he [t priest] carried it out [of the north into the south] it is disqualified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, for no barrier divided the north from the south, to disqualify a sacrifice if its blood was carried from one into the other.');">²³</span>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע במדביק כלי בצוארה

Rather, this is required where it went without; so there too, it is required where it went without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do not infer that if one carried it out it is unfit (that is obviously incorrect) , but that if it struggled and went out of the Temple court, even if i returned, it is disqualified. Similarly, the bird remains fit only if it struggled and entered within; but if it struggled out of the Temple court, it is disqualified. No deduction, however, is to be made where one carried the bird within.');">²⁴</span> R'Abin asked: What if the blood [of the bird-offering] poured out on to the pavement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the Temple court.');">²⁵</span>

בעא מיניה לוי ניתז מבגד לבגד מהו מבגד קמא אידחי ליה לכיבוס או דלמא לא

and one collected it? [Do we say that] the Divine Law merely did not demand<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit, 'make it need.'');">²⁶</span>

א"ל זו שאלה טעון כיבוס ממה נפשך אי אוספו וכשר הא כשר ואי אוספו ופסול אנא כרבי עקיבא ס"ל דאמר היתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסלה דמה טעון כיבוס

a service vessel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bird's throat counting as such.');">²⁷</span> and therefore one collects it and it is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as when the blood of an animal-offering is spilt from the service vessel in which it was received.');">²⁸</span> or perhaps, in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, and therefore one collects it, but it is disqualified?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sprinkling, for Scripture insisted that it must be sprinkled direct from the throat.');">²⁹</span> - Said Raba, Come and hear: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering necessitates washing; therefore 'this is' is stated. Now, if you think that in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, I can infer this since it was disqualified in the air-space of a vessel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the blood enters the airspace above the garment it is technically received in a vessel (a garment ranks as a utensil or vessel) and is disqualified for sprinkling. Consequently the garment need not be washed, for only blood fit for sprinkling necessitates washing. What need then is there of a text?');">³⁰</span> - Said R'Huna son of Joshua: [The text is necessary] where one presses the garment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'vessel.'');">³¹</span> to its neck.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the blood did not enter the air-space above the garment at all. Even then it need not be washed.');">³²</span> Levi asked Rabbi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Sh.M.) .');">³³</span> What if it spurted from one garment on to another garment?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the blood of an animal sin-offering.');">³⁴</span> [Do we say,] It was rejected from the first garment in respect of washing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it fell on the first garment it became unfit for sprinkling, since it must be washed out, and therefore the second garment does not need washing.');">³⁵</span> or not? - That is indeed a question, he replied. It does need washing, on either alternative: if one can collect [the blood] and it is fit [for sprinkling], then th is fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now that we know from 'this is' that a limitation is intended, 'shall eat it' teaches that the limitation concerns those which are eaten.');">⁶</span> While if it is collected and disqualified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For further sprinkling.');">³⁷</span> I agree with R'Akiba who maintained [that] if it had a period of fitness and was then disqualified, its blood necessitates washing.