Torah Community Connections

Week 144 - Wednesday - 28 August 2002

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 10

If what requires one application became mixed up with what requires one application - one application is due. What requires four with what requires four - four applications are due. What requires four applications with what requires one application - R. Eliezer says, Four applications are due. R. Yehoshua says, One application is due. Said R. Eliezer to him, But he transgresses 'you shall not diminish from it' ! Said R. Yehoshua to him, But he transgresses 'you shall not add to it'! Said R. Eliezer to him, Not to add applies only when it is by itself. Said R. Yehoshua to him, Not to diminish applies only when it is by itself. R. Yehoshua said further, When you apply, you transgress 'you shall not add' with an act of your hand, but when you do not apply, you transgress 'you shall not diminish', but you perform no act with your hand.

Kehati

In the Fifth Chapter we learned about three kinds of sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar- a) sin-offerings - both public and private - whose blood is applied in four sprinklings on the four corners of the altar; b) burnt- and guilt-offerings, the public peace-offering (due on Shavuot), the thank-offering, the nazirite's ram, and peace-offerings, all of whose blood is applied below the hut hasikra in "two sprinklings which are four"; c) the firstborn animal, animal tithe and the pesah sacrifice - all of which require one blood sprinkling over the base (below the hut hasikra). Our mishnah deals with the status of the blood of these offerings which became mixed up.

If what requires one application became mixed up with what requires one application - e.g., the blood of a firstborn animal with that of an animal tithe, one application is due below the hut hasikra, as explained above. If what requires two sprinklings which are four, intermingled with what requires two sprinklings which are four - e.g., the blood of a burnt-offering with that of a peace-offering - two which are four applications are due since the same number of sprinklings applies to all of them, due below the hut hasikra. If what requires two which are four applications became mixed up with what requires one application - e.g., the blood of a burnt-offering with that of a firstling -

R. Eliezer says, Two which are four applications are due, and it covers both since we regard the superfluous applications from the firstling's blood as water.

R. Yehoshua says, One application is due -although the burnt-offering requires two applications which are four, the offering remains valid even with one, as taught (see mishnah 4:1), "Whatever must be applied on the outer altar - if he applied once, he has made atonement". According to the Gemara, both this and the preceding mishnah deal with cups rather than with blood that intermingled, so that the applications prescribed above must proceed from each cup.

Said R.Eliezer to him - to R. Yehoshua, "But if he sprinkles once instead of four times (e.g., in the case of a burnt-offering) he transgresses the law of (Deut. 13:1): 'Every matter which I command you, observe to do it... 'you shall not diminish from it"'! how then can you prescribe a simple application?"

Said R. Yehoshua to him, if of the blood which requires one sprinkling (e.g., that of a firstling) he applies four sprinklings, he transgresses the law of (ibid.): 'Every matter which I command you, observe to do it you shall not add to it!' How then can you prescribe the application of four?"

Said R. Eliezer to him - he himself regards the redundant applications as water, as explained above, and hence this does not contradict 'you shall not add'. However, to R. Yehoshua, who does not regard these as water, he rejoined, the precept "Not to add applies only when it is by itself' unmixed, but when mixed there is no transgression. Said R. Yehoshua to him, the prohibition "not to diminish" likewise applies only when it is by itself, i.e., to unmixed blood. Hence if one application suffices why apply four?

R. Yehoshua said further: "When you apply two sprinklings which are four you transgress 'you shall not add' with an act of your hand, but when you do not apply more than one sprinkling, though you transgress 'you shall not diminish', but you perform no act with your hand - since a passive transgression is less offensive than one committed actively, it is preferable to sprinkle once rather than four times. The halakhah follows R. Yehoshua.

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 11

If what requires sprinkling inside became mixed up with what requires sprinkling outside - it must be poured out into the sewer. If he sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside - it is valid. Inside and then outside - R. Akiva declares it invalid, but the Sages declare it valid. For R. Akiva used to say, Any blood that was brought into the Sanctuary to make atonement is invalid. But the Sages say, Only the sin-offering. R.Eliezer says, Also the guilt-offering, for it is stated (Lev. 7:7): " As the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering".

Kehati

In the introduction to the preceding mishnah we listed the sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the outer altar. There are sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the veil and on the golden altar, as taught above (5:1-2), and are known as the inner sin-offerings. Our mishnah deals with inner sin-offering blood that intermingled with that of an outer offering.

If what requires sprinkling inside became mixed up with what requires sprinkling outside - if the blood of inner sin-offerings intermingled with that of offerings sprinkled on the outer altar - it must be poured out into the sewer in the Temple Court; such a mixture must not be sprinkled, since one may not modify the blood sprinkling of one kind in order to render valid the other.

If he - a priest who did not consult, and initially sprinkled of the mixture outside - on the outer altar - and then sprinkled inside, it is bedi'avad valid - but lekhathilah one may not serve the outer before the inner altar.

If he sprinkled first inside and then outside on the outer altar - R. Akiva declares it - the outer offering -invalid because the blood was invalidated when it was taken inside, as explained in our mishnah below, but the Sages declare it valid bedi'avad, except for outer sin-offering blood that intermingled with that of an inner sin-offering, which the Sages also disqualify, if initially sprinkled inside, for the reason explained in our mishnah below.

For R. Akiva used to say, Any blood which is sprinkled on the outer altar, that was brought into the Sanctuary for sprinkling to make atonement is rendered invalid.

But the Sages say, Only the blood of the outer sin-offering is rendered invalid if brought into the Sanctuary to make atonement, thus (Lev. 6:23): "And no sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to be sprinkled in the holy place, shall be eaten, it shall be burnt in the fire". This implies that if any of the outer sin-offering blood entered the Sanctuary, the sin-offering is voided since the blood has become invalid. Not so the blood of other outer offerings brought inside, which does not render the offering invalid. In R. Akiva's view, however, "and no sin-offering" includes other outer offerings, which are likewise disqualified if their blood enters the Sanctuary.

R. Eliezer says, - Like the sin-offering - also the guilt-offering lapses, if its blood enters inside, for it is stated (Lev. 7:7): "As the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering" R. Eliezer agrees with the Sages that the Torah invalidates only the blood of sin-offerings. However, since ''as the sin-offering is, so is the guilt-offering", the latter shares the status of the former. The halakhah follows the Sages, i.e., only the sin-offering becomes invalid if the blood duly sprinkled outside was brought inside.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives