We are up to chapter 8, Mishnah 12, the last in the chapter, which discusses a number of topics. We are now leaving the subject of blood mixtures, but we are still dealing with the law of blood that enters the Heichal, which we will discuss at length. There are two things to keep in mind for this Mishnah, the first of which is the verse itself.
The verse upon which the law is based:
We brought the verse in the previous Mishnah: "Vechol chatas asher yuva midamah el ohel moed lechaper bakodesh lo se'achel ba'esh tisaref" - "And any sin-offering whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire." Let us analyze its wording precisely:
"Vechol chatas" - And any sin-offering. We said that the word "vechol" comes to include.
"Asher yuva midamah" - That is brought from its blood. The prefix "mi" in "midamah" (from its blood) implies some of the blood, and not necessarily all of it.
"El ohel moed" - Into the Tent of Meeting. This means into the Temple, into the Heichal.
"Lechaper bakodesh" - To atone in the Sanctuary. Here there is a disagreement: does this mean that the blood must actually be applied, or is the intention to apply it sufficient?
"Lo se'achel ba'esh tisaref" - Shall not be eaten; it shall be burned in fire. The sin-offering becomes unfit to be eaten and must be burned in fire because it was disqualified.
These are the central themes in our Mishnah.
The disqualification of going out:
We mentioned in the introduction that there is a separate prohibition against taking the blood, the emurim (the parts offered on the altar), or the meat (the parts that are eaten) outside the area where they belong. In most cases, their place is inside the Azarah, but the meat of kodashim kalim (sacrifices of lesser sanctity) may be taken anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. Something that goes outside its boundary is called "yotzei" (going out) and becomes disqualified - and only the part that goes out becomes disqualified. Therefore, if half of a leg went outside the boundary, that half is disqualified, and the other half remains fit for eating. We will further discuss how this law relates - or does not relate - to the law of bringing blood into the Heichal that we learned in the previous Mishnah, which is also a place outside its boundary, but is not in the category of "yotzei" in and of itself.
The text of the Mishnah:
"Chatas shekibel damah bishnei chosos, yatza echad mehen lachutz - hapenimi kasher" - A sin-offering whose blood was received in two cups, and one of them went outside, the inner one is valid. This refers to a regular sin-offering, which is offered on the outer altar, whose blood was received in two separate cups. If one of the cups went outside the boundary, outside the walls of the Azarah, the cup that remained within its boundary is valid. The entire sacrifice is not disqualified, but only the blood that went out, and everyone agrees on this. It should be noted that the word "hapenimi" (the inner one) here does not refer to inside the Heichal, but rather to the blood that remained inside the Azarah, in its proper place.
"Nichnas echad mehen lifnim - Rabbi Yosi HaGelili machshir bachitzon, vachachamim poslin" - If one of them entered inside, Rabbi Yosi HaGelili validates the outer one, and the Sages disqualify it. This means if one of the two cups containing the blood of the sin-offering that belongs on the outer altar was brought inside, into the Heichal. We learned in the previous Mishnah and from the verse that bringing it in disqualifies it, and the question is whether the entire sacrifice is disqualified or only the blood that entered. Rabbi Yosi HaGelili holds that only the blood that entered is disqualified, and the blood that did not enter remains valid, and therefore it can be sprinkled on the altar; while the Sages say that the verse teaches that if any blood enters inside, the entire sacrifice is completely disqualified.
The root of their disagreement lies in the verses. Rabbi Yosi HaGelili learns the entire topic from a different verse, which we will not go into here, and therefore he explains "midamah" - from its blood, meaning that the blood that entered is disqualified, but the rest is not disqualified. The Sages explain "midamah" - that any blood that enters inside, even if only a portion of it enters, disqualifies the entire sacrifice.
The kal vachomer of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili:
Since each of them derives from a different verse, their views do not meet; nonetheless, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili wishes to offer the Sages a kal vachomer. Let us first explain it from the outside: On the scale of a kal vachomer, which of the locations is considered "out of bounds" more severely - the area of the Heichal or beyond the walls of the Azarah? Beyond the walls of the Azarah is more severe. The reason for this: If during the slaughter, receiving, carrying, or sprinkling, the kohen thought to place the blood outside of its area, or to eat the meat outside of its area, or to burn the eimurim outside of their area - the thought alone invalidates the entire offering, as we elaborated earlier in the tractate. But if he thought to place the blood inside the Heichal - it is a puzzling thought, but it is not an invalidating thought. Hence, going beyond the walls of the Azarah is a more severe "out of bounds" than the Heichal.
From here comes the kal vachomer: If with two cups of blood where one of them went outside the Azarah - the more severe of the locations - the second one remains valid, then kal vachomer that with two cups where one of them entered the Heichal, which is more lenient, the second one should remain valid.
And this is the language of the Mishnah: "Amar Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Mah im bamakom shemachashavah poseles - bachutz - lo asah es hameshuyar kayotzei, makom she'ein machashavah poseles - bifnim - eino din shelo na'aseh es hameshuyar kanichnas" - Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: If in a place where thought invalidates - outside - it does not make the remainder like that which went out, a place where thought does not invalidate - inside - is it not logical that we should not make the remainder like that which entered:
"Bamakom shemachashavah poseles - bachutz" - "If in a place where thought invalidates - outside" - the thought to go out of the walls of the Azarah invalidates the entire offering, and this is the severity of that location.
"Lo asah es hameshuyar kayotzei" - "It does not make the remainder like that which went out" - and nevertheless we do not judge the blood that remained inside as blood that went out, and everyone agrees that if one of the two samples went out, the second one is valid.
"Makom she'ein machashavah poseles - bifnim" - "A place where thought does not invalidate - inside" - the thought to bring the blood into the Heichal does not invalidate, which is a sign that the inner location is less severe.
"Eino din shelo na'aseh es hameshuyar kanichnas" - "Is it not logical that we should not make the remainder like that which entered" - does it not make sense that the blood that did not enter should remain valid, given that the Heichal is a more lenient location than the outside?
The kal vachomer is extremely convincing and logical, and the Sages would have agreed with him - were it not that the verse explicitly states that "of its blood," a portion of the offering's blood that entered the Heichal, invalidates the entire offering. Because of this, the Sages do not respond to the kal vachomer at all, for this is not a matter of kal vachomer but of the language of the verse itself.
"Nichnas lechaper af al pi shelo kiper":
The Mishnah adds a new matter: "Nichnas lechaper, af al pi shelo kiper - pasul, divrei Rabbi Eliezer" - "If it entered to atone, even though it did not atone - it is invalid, the words of Rabbi Eliezer" - he brought the blood of the chatas that belongs outside into the Heichal with the intent to sprinkle the blood. "To atone" - with the intent to sprinkle, and even if he did not actually sprinkle, that is enough to invalidate it. This is how Rabbi Eliezer explains the verse "And every chatas whose blood is brought into the Ohel Moed to atone in the sanctuary": The bringing in order to atone is enough, since "to atone" means the intent.
While Rabbi Shimon explains "to atone" - the actual sprinkling of the blood, which effects the atonement, and therefore "Rabbi Shimon omer: Ad sheyechaper" - "Rabbi Shimon says: Until it atones" - the blood is not invalidated until a portion of it is actually sprinkled on the inner altar.
The halachah is not like Rabbi Shimon, but like Rabbi Yehudah, who is even more lenient: "Im nichnas shogeg - kasher" - "If it entered inadvertently - it is valid" - even if it entered inside, whether he sprinkled the blood or did not sprinkle it, if he did this inadvertently, not knowing what he was doing and not paying attention that the blood in his hand belongs outside - the offering remains valid. That is, an intent to apply the outer blood on the inner altar is required, and without it the offering is not invalidated, and this is the halachah.
The Tzitz:
The Mishnah concludes with an additional point - the matter of the Tzitz. The Tzitz is one of the eight garments that the kohen gadol wears, a sort of golden forehead band upon which is written "Holy to Hashem," and the kohen gadol wears it. The verse says: "Vehayah al metzach Aharon, venasa Aharon es avon hakodashim" - "And it shall be on Aharon's forehead, and Aharon shall bear the iniquity of the holy things" - the Tzitz shall be on the forehead of the kohen gadol, and he will bear the iniquity of the holy things. That is, as long as the Tzitz is on the forehead of the kohen gadol, the iniquity of the holy things is atoned for, and even though an iniquity became mixed in, there is acceptance and the offering is accepted. But the verse does not explain which iniquity is being discussed, and we have two possible iniquities before us:
The iniquity of tumah - that the kohen who performed the service was tamei, or that the blood became tamei.
Invalidations such as "yotzei" - that the blood went outside of its area.
For which of them does the Tzitz effect acceptance - for one of them, or perhaps for both?
"Kol hadamim hapesulin shenitnu al gabei mizbe'ach - lo hirtzah tzitz ela al hatamei, shehatzitz meratzeh al hatamei ve'ein meratzeh al hayotzeh":
"Kol hadamim hapesulin shenitnu al gabei mizbe'ach" - invalid blood, such as blood that went outside the courtyard, and was offered on the altar after it became invalid.
"Lo hirtzah tzitz ela al hatamei" - the Tzitz does not help to validate it, and only tumah is excluded from this rule: if the blood became tamei, or the kohen became tamei and offered the blood unknowingly, then the Tzitz that the kohen wears effects acceptance and validates it after the fact.
"Ve'ein meratzeh al hayotzeh" - but the Tzitz does not validate other invalidations. Blood that was "yotzeh" and went outside the courtyard may never be offered, and even if it was offered and the kohen is wearing the Tzitz - it does not help, and it is not valid.
In summary: In this Mishnah we learned that for a sin-offering whose blood was received in two cups and one of them went outside the courtyard - the inner one is valid; and if one of them entered the Heichal, there is a dispute between Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, who validates the outer one, and the Sages, who invalidate the entire offering based on the wording of "from its blood." We discussed Rabbi Yosi HaGelili's kal vachomer from the law of an intention for outside its proper place, and how the Sages do not respond to him because the wording of the verse is decisive. We also learned the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yehudah in the explanation of "to atone," and the halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah that if he entered unknowingly - it is valid. Finally, we learned that the Tzitz only effects acceptance for tumah, and does not effect acceptance for blood that went out.