## Zevachim Daf 82b

###### Zevachim 82b:1
[Zevachim 82b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:1)

מָקוֹם שֶׁיְּהֵא מְשׁוּלָּשׁ בְּדָם, בְּבָשָׂר, בְּאֵימוּרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This verse teaches that the **place where** improper intent disqualifies the offering **must be triply** functional: **For** the presenting of **the blood, for** the eating of **the meat,** and **for** the burning of **the sacrificial portions** of the offering that are consumed on the altar. In other words, it must be outside its designated place with regard to all three of these issues. Consequently, intent to present the blood in the Sanctuary does not disqualify the blood.


###### Zevachim 82b:2
[Zevachim 82b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:2)

וְלֹא תְּהֵא מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בַּחוּץ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – אֵין מַחְשָׁבָה פּוֹסֶלֶת בִּפְנִים, מְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבְּפָנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא פּוֹסֵל מַחְשָׁבָה בַּחוּץ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests the opposite: **And** if so, **let intent** to present the blood **outside** the Sanctuary **not disqualify** the offering **based on an *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as** in **a place where** the part of the **blood that** went **inside** the Sanctuary **disqualifies** the rest of the blood **that is outside** in the courtyard, and yet **intent** to present the blood **inside** the Sanctuary **does not disqualify** the offering, so too, in **a place where** the part of the **blood that** went **outside** the courtyard **does not disqualify** the rest of the blood **that is inside** the courtyard, **is it not logical that intent** to present the blood **outside** the courtyard **does not disqualify** the offering?


###### Zevachim 82b:3
[Zevachim 82b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:3)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שְׁלִישִׁי״ – חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, ״פִּגּוּל״ – חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **the verse states:** “And if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is *piggul*; it shall not be accepted,” and the Sages interpreted this verse as follows: “On the **third** day” is referring to intent to perform its rites **beyond its** designated **time;** “it is ***piggul*”** is referring to intent to perform its rites **outside its** designated **area.**


###### Zevachim 82b:4
[Zevachim 82b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:4)

בָּשָׂר [הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ – פָּסוּל], הַנִּכְנָס לִפְנִים – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A *baraita* teaches: The **meat** of offerings **that left** its designated area and was taken **to** a place that is **outside** its designated area for consumption, which is outside the wall of Jerusalem in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity and outside the wall of the Temple courtyard in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, is **disqualified** from being eaten. By contrast, meat of offerings **that entered inside** the Sanctuary is not disqualified and remains **fit** to be eaten.


###### Zevachim 82b:5
[Zevachim 82b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:5)

שֶׁיְּהֵא בַּדִּין שֶׁפָּסוּל: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ פָּסוּל, מְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס בִּפְנִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּפְסוֹל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One might have thought **that it should be** derived **based on a logical inference that** this meat is **disqualified,** as follows: **And just as in a place where** the part of the **blood that** went **outside** the courtyard **does not disqualify** the rest of the blood **that** remained **inside** the courtyard, yet **meat that leaves** and is taken **outside** the courtyard is **disqualified,** so too, in **a place where** the part of the **blood that** went **inside** the Sanctuary **disqualifies** the rest of the blood **that is outside** the Sanctuary, **is it not right that meat that enters** the Sanctuary **should be disqualified?**


###### Zevachim 82b:6
[Zevachim 82b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:6)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״מִדָּמָהּ״ – דָּמָהּ וְלֹא (בשר) [בְּשָׂרָהּ].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* explains that one does not derive this inference, as the verse **states:** “And any sin offering, whereof any **of the blood** is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23), which indicates that the **blood of** an offering that is brought inside is disqualified, **but not meat** that enters the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 82b:7
[Zevachim 82b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:7)

קַל וָחוֹמֶר מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁפָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבִּפְנִים אֶת שֶׁבַּחוּץ – בָּשָׂר הַנִּכְנָס לְפָנִים כָּשֵׁר; מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא פָּסַל דָּם שֶׁבַּחוּץ אֶת שֶׁבִּפְנִים – בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹצֵא לַחוּץ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁכָּשֵׁר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **From now,** as it has been established that the meat of offerings that is brought inside the Sanctuary is not disqualified, one can suggest **an *a fortiori*** inference: **And just as in a place where blood that** went **inside** the Sanctuary **disqualifies** the blood **that** remained **outside** in the courtyard, and yet **meat that enters** the Sanctuary is **fit,** therefore, in **a place where** the **blood that** went **outside** the courtyard **does not disqualify** the blood **that is inside** the courtyard, **is it not logical that meat that left** and was taken **outside** the courtyard should be **fit?**


###### Zevachim 82b:8
[Zevachim 82b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:8)

הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּצָא בָּשָׂר חוּץ לִמְחִיצָתוֹ, נֶאֱסָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that one does not derive this *a fortiori* inference, as the verse **states: “And you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field”** (Exodus 22:30). The apparently superfluous term “in the field” teaches a general *halakha*: **Once meat has left** and been removed **outside of its boundary,** i.e., the area in which it is permitted to consume it, it **has become prohibited.**


###### Zevachim 82b:9
[Zevachim 82b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:9)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״פְּנִימָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פְּנִימָה, הֵיכָל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the blood of a sin offering that entered the Sanctuary. **The Sages taught:** It is stated that when Moses questioned Aaron as to why a sin offering was not consumed, he said: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place **within”** (Leviticus 10:18). This indicates that had the blood been brought within, Moses would have understood that the offering would have been disqualified and rendered prohibited for consumption. The *baraita* comments: **I have** derived **only** that the offering is disqualified if the blood is brought **within,** i.e., into the Holy of Holies; **from where** is it derived that the same applies if it was merely brought into the **Sanctuary? The verse states: “Into the sacred place within,”** and this sacred place is the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 82b:10
[Zevachim 82b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:10)

וְיֹאמַר ״קֹדֶשׁ״, וְאַל וְיֹאמַר ״פְּנִימָה״! אָמַר רָבָא: בָּא זֶה וְלִימֵּד עַל זֶה; מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַ״תּוֹשָׁב וְשָׂכִיר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this derivation: **And let** the verse **state** only **“sacred place,” and** it need **not state “within.”** If blood that entered the Sanctuary is already disqualified, this *halakha* certainly applies if it was brought farther inside, to the Holy of Holies. **Rava says: This** verse **comes and teaches about that** verse. In other words, had the verse stated only “sacred place,” it would have been interpreted as referring to the Holy of Holies. The addition of “within” indicates that this sacred place is the Sanctuary, while the term “within” is referring to the Holy of Holies. The Gemara cites a similar example: This is **just as it is with regard to a tenant and a hired worker.**


###### Zevachim 82b:11
[Zevachim 82b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם, ״שָׂכִיר״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* concerning *teruma*: The verse states: “A tenant of a priest or a hired worker shall not eat of the consecrated” (Leviticus 22:10). **“A tenant”; this** is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been **acquired** as **a permanent acquisition,** i.e., one who said he wishes to stay with his master. This slave has his ear pierced and he remains with his master until the Jubilee Year. **“A hired worker”; this** is referring to a Hebrew slave who has been **acquired** for **an acquisition of** six **years,** the standard period of servitude for a Hebrew slave.


###### Zevachim 82b:12
[Zevachim 82b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:12)

יֹאמַר ״תּוֹשָׁב״ וְאַל יֹאמַר ״שָׂכִיר״, וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל, קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **Let** the verse **say “tenant” and let it not say “hired worker,” and I** would **say:** If one who is **acquired** as **a permanent acquisition does not partake** of his master’s, i.e., the priest’s, *teruma*, as despite his status as a slave he is not considered his master’s property, is it **not all the more so** logical that one who is **acquired** for **an acquisition of** six **years** should not be permitted to partake of *teruma*?


###### Zevachim 82b:13
[Zevachim 82b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:13)

אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״תּוֹשָׁב״ – זֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים, אֲבָל קְנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם יְהֵא אוֹכֵל; בָּא ״שָׂכִיר״ וְלִימֵּד עַל ״תּוֹשָׁב״, שֶׁזֶּה קָנוּי קִנְיַן עוֹלָם וְזֶה קָנוּי קִנְיַן שָׁנִים – וְאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers: **If so,** that the verse were stated in this manner, **I would say: “A tenant”; this is** one who was **acquired** for **an acquisition of** six **years,** as the term itself is ambiguous, **but** one who was **acquired** as **a permanent acquisition may partake** of *teruma*. Therefore, the term **“hired worker,”** which is certainly referring to one who is less permanent than a tenant, **comes and teaches about** the meaning of the term **“tenant,” that this** one was **acquired** as **a permanent acquisition and that** one was **acquired** for **an acquisition of** six **years, and** both this one and that one **may not partake** of *teruma*. Similar reasoning applies in the above case concerning the terms “sacred place” and “within.”


###### Zevachim 82b:14
[Zevachim 82b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם – תְּרֵי גוּפֵי נִינְהוּ; וְאַף עַל גַּב דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לִקְרָא לְמִכְתַּב ״נִרְצָע לֹא יֹאכַל״, וְאִידַּךְ אָתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר – מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא. אֶלָּא הָכָא, כֵּיוָן (דְּאִיכָּא) דְּאִיפְּסֵל בְּהֵיכָל, (הָכָא) לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים מַאי בָּעֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: Are these cases comparable? **Granted, there,** the tenant and the hired worker **are two bodies. And** this is significant, as **even though the verse could have written** explicitly that **a pierced** tenant **may not partake** of *teruma*, from which the *halakha* of a Hebrew slave for six years could have been inferred, **and the other** case, that of a slave for six years, is therefore **a matter that can be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference, it need not be stated explicitly. Nevertheless, there is a principle: At times, with regard to **a matter that can be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference, the **verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly. **But here,** the same blood enters the Holy of Holies via the Sanctuary, and **once it is disqualified in the Sanctuary, why is it necessary** for the verse to teach that this blood is disqualified when it enters **the innermost sanctum,** the Holy of Holies?


###### Zevachim 82b:15
[Zevachim 82b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְדֶרֶךְ מְשׁוּפָּשׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: וְהָא הֲבָאָה כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל מִידֵּי דְּחַשֵּׁיב עֲלֵיהּ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – לָא מִיפְּסֵל בְּהֵיכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye says:** This mention of “within” **is necessary only for** a case where the blood entered the Holy of Holies not via the Sanctuary but in **a roundabout manner,** e.g., from the roof or the loft of the Holy of Holies, without having entered the Sanctuary. **Rava said to** Abaye: **But** an expression of **bringing is written in** the verse: “Behold, its blood was not brought into the sacred place within,” which indicates a standard manner of bringing it into the Holy of Holies. **Rather, Rava says:** In **any** circumstance **where** the priest **intended** to bring the blood inside **the innermost sanctum, it is not disqualified** when it is only **in the Sanctuary,** and therefore it was necessary for the verse to teach both disqualifications.


###### Zevachim 82b:16
[Zevachim 82b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:16)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: פַּר הֶעְלֵם דָּבָר שֶׁל צִבּוּר וּשְׂעִיר עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁהִכְנִיס דָּמָן לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava raises a dilemma:** With regard to the **bull for an unwitting communal sin and** the **goat for** a sin of **idol worship,** whose blood should be presented in the Sanctuary, if it occurred **that** the priest **brought their blood into the innermost sanctum, what is** the *halakha*?


###### Zevachim 82b:17
[Zevachim 82b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:17)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה״ – כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינַן ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ קָרֵינַן לֵיהּ ״פְּנִימָה״, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָרֵינַן ״אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ לָא קָרֵינַן ״פְּנִימָה״; אוֹ דִלְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן הוּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: **Do we say** that since the verse states: **“Into the sacred place within”** (Leviticus 10:18) as a single phrase, and therefore **anywhere that we read** a prohibition against bringing the blood **“into the sacred place,”** i.e., that the blood is disqualified by being brought into the Sanctuary, **we** also **read** a prohibition against bringing the blood **“within,”** i.e., that it is likewise disqualified when it is brought into the Holy of Holies; but **anywhere that we do not read** a prohibition against bringing the blood **“into the sacred place,”** such as with regard to these offerings, whose blood is supposed to be brought into the Sanctuary, **we do not read** a prohibition against bringing the blood **“within”** the Holy of Holies? **Or perhaps,** since in any event the Holy of Holies **is not the** proper **place** for the blood **of these** offerings, it is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 82b:18
[Zevachim 82b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:18)

וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹמָן הוּא – פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים שֶׁהִזָּה מִדָּמָן עַל הַבַּדִּים, וְהוֹצִיאָן לַהֵיכָל וְהִכְנִיסָן, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that** the Holy of Holies **is not the** proper **place** for the blood **of these** offerings and they are therefore disqualified, one can raise another dilemma: In the case of the **bull and goat of Yom Kippur, where** the High Priest **sprinkled from their blood on the staves** of the Ark, as required (see Leviticus 16:14), **and he brought** their remaining blood **out to the Sanctuary and** subsequently **brought** it **in** again to the Holy of Holies, **what is** the *halakha*? Is the blood disqualified by this improper second entrance into the Holy of Holies?


###### Zevachim 82b:19
[Zevachim 82b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:19)

מִי אָמְרִינַן מְקוֹמָן הוּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק נְפַק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains the sides of the question: **Do we say** that **it is its place,** as the High Priest is supposed to bring this blood into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur at some point? **Or perhaps** one should say that **since** the High Priest has performed the mitzva and the blood has been **brought out,** it has been **brought out,** and the Holy of Holies is no longer considered its place.


###### Zevachim 82b:20
[Zevachim 82b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/82b:20)

וְאִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר הוֹאִיל וּנְפַק נְפַק – הִזָּה מִדָּמָן עַל הַפָּרֹכֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that since** the blood has been **brought out,** it has been **brought out,** one can raise another dilemma: If the High Priest **sprinkled from their blood on the** Sanctuary **Curtain**