Chapter Thirteen, Mishnah 8 - the final mishnah of the chapter. We continue to discuss offering outside of its proper place, but this time the mishnah deals with zrikah. Zrikah, meaning the application of the blood, also carries the penalty of kares, as mentioned briefly twelve mishnayos earlier, and even though this is not explicit in the verse: the verses speak only of slaughtering and offering up, but applying the blood in an improper place, on an altar outside the Courtyard, also carries the penalty of kares by virtue of the expositions of Chazal.
The case before us deals with one of the inner sin offerings - one of the five sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, the Golden Altar. The situation discussed is that the blood was received into two separate cups. As we learned at the end of the eighth chapter, when the blood of the sacrifice is in two cups, two sanctified service vessels, either of the two blood samples can be used, this one or that one. This is the background to our mishnah.
Our mishnah was taught according to the view of Rabbi Nechemyah:
Our mishnah is not the halachah, but rather follows the view of Rabbi Nechemyah who appeared at the end of mishnah 6. Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the pouring out of the leftover blood of the inner sin offerings is an obligation that is part of the body of the service itself. Although the leftovers are poured out on the base at the southwestern corner, in his opinion this is an essential part of the service of those sin offerings. Therefore, one who pours this blood on an altar outside the boundary is liable to kares, for he offered blood in an improper place, and this blood is considered like the live blood of a sacrifice designated to be placed on the altar inside the boundary.
The halachah is not in accordance with Rabbi Nechemyah, but rather in accordance with the view of the Sage who holds that after the required blood applications have been made in the Sanctuary in their place inside, the pouring out of the leftover blood from that cup onto the base of the outer altar is an independent requirement - pouring out blood - but does not invalidate and is not an essential part of the blood service. Therefore, according to the halachah, one who places this blood in an improper place transgresses a prohibition, but is not liable for it. Our mishnah, which follows the view of Rabbi Nechemyah, deems him liable.
The simple case - he received its blood in one cup:
"Hachatas shekibel damah bekos echad" - a sin offering whose blood was received in one cup. This refers to one of the inner sin offerings: the two sacrifices of Yom Kippur (the bull and the goat), or the other three - the bull for an unwitting communal sin, the goat for idolatry (in a case of idolatry) and the bull of the anointed kohen - whose blood goes inside. He received the blood into one cup, and these are the laws:
"Nasan bachutz vechazar venasan bifnim" - he placed outside and then placed inside. He applied the blood on an altar outside the boundary, and afterwards placed it in its proper place inside: he is liable, since he applied the blood in a place where it should not go.
"Bifnim vechazar venasan bachutz" - inside and then placed outside. He applied the blood on the inner altar in its place, and afterwards took the leftover blood and poured it on an altar outside the boundary: since according to Rabbi Nechemyah it is required to pour the leftovers on the outer altar inside the boundary, here too he is liable, as we learned at the end of mishnah 6.
And the reason for this: "Shekulo ra'uy lavo bifnim" - for all of it is fit to come inside. All of that blood is designated to come inside the boundary, and there is no part of it that is fit to go outside the boundary. Since it could and should have been applied inside the boundary, one who applies it outside - whether with the initial applications or with the leftover blood - is liable to kares, according to the view of Rabbi Nechemyah.
He received its blood in two cups:
"Nasan sheneihem bifnim" - he placed both of them inside. He is exempt. Truthfully, the applications from cup A are valid, and cup B should have been poured into the water channel because it was not used; but applying it on the altar does not carry liability to kares.
"Sheneihem bachutz" - both of them outside. He is liable, and even twice. If these were two separate lapses of awareness - he placed cup A on an altar outside the boundary, they brought it to his attention that this should not be done, and after he forgot he again placed the second cup - he is liable two times. Even though the first cup went to waste, and worse than that, through a transgression whose liability is kares, the blood in the second cup still could and should have been applied in its place inside, and therefore placing it outside is a transgression in its own right.
"Echad bifnim ve'echad bachutz" - one inside and one outside. He is exempt. Cup A is the existing cup, and its blood must be placed on the altar and its leftovers on the base of the outer altar; but since the applications from cup A were already made, cup B, which is from the same animal, is useless and is no longer valid for the inner altar. Therefore, one who sprinkles it outside is exempt, as it was not fit and can no longer be part of the sacrifice.
"Echad bachutz ve'echad bifnim" - one outside and one inside. Here is a surprising situation: he first placed cup A on an altar outside the boundary, and this is the prohibition of zrikah outside in an improper place; but the second cup was not invalidated, and therefore if he placed it on the inner altar properly - it is fully effective. We find that there is liability to kares for the placing outside, and at the same time the sacrifice is performed properly with the second cup.
A parallel case: two sin offerings one of which is left to die:
In its second part, the Mishnah brings a parallel case, and we must clear our minds from the previous discussion: we are no longer dealing with an inner sin offering, nor necessarily with the application of blood, but rather starting fresh from scratch. There is a situation where two animals are both valid to serve as a person's sin offering, and this is one of the situations that leads to the law of a "sin offering left to die" (chattas hamesah): one is brought as a sacrifice, and the second is left to die.
And this is the case: A person separated Animal A and designated it as his sin offering, and Animal A got lost. He said: I am still obligated to bring my sin offering, and he brought a new goat - Animal B. Afterwards, Animal A was found. Now, two animals that were separated for a sin offering stand before him; only one needs to be offered, and each one of them can, and indeed must, be offered as a sin offering, while the second is left to die.
"Shachat vehikriv es shteihen bifnim" - If he slaughtered and offered both of them inside: he is exempt, and there is no liability for kares here. The first animal indeed needed to be slaughtered and offered, and the second was designated to be left to die; by slaughtering it and applying its blood on the altar he transgressed a prohibition, but not a prohibition that carries kares.
"Shachat es shteihen michutz litchum" - If he slaughtered both of them outside the boundary: he is liable, and even twice, just like with the cups of blood: even after he ruined the first, he could have processed the second properly had he not taken it outside. Slaughtering the first outside carries kares, and the second animal could still have been brought as a regular sin offering, and therefore slaughtering it outside is also a transgression. And if he did this in two separate lapses of awareness, having remembered between the slaughterings that he may not slaughter the second outside the boundary - each slaughter independently carries the punishment of kares, and such is the halachah.
"Achas bifnim ve'achas bachutz" - One inside and one outside: he offered the first where it belongs, and the second animal, which has no further use and whose law is to be left to die, he took outside the boundary and slaughtered: he is exempt. And similarly, he is equally exempt for offering it up and sprinkling. The reason: the second animal can no longer be brought as a sacrifice, and the threshold for kares liability discussed throughout the chapter is that it must be a sacrifice that truly needs to be brought upon the altar. Since there is only one sin offering per transgression, and his sin offering was already brought the first time, the second animal is invalid, and therefore one who slaughters or offers it outside - is exempt.
"Chayav al hachitzonah vehapenimis mechapares" - He is liable for the outer one and the inner one provides atonement: he took the first animal, as he had the choice of which to bring, and offered it on an altar outside the boundary: this is a sin, and for it he will be liable for kares - and it is possible he will be liable for two kares penalties, for the slaughter and for the offering up. And if he now took the second animal and offered it as a regular sin offering - it is effective and provides atonement. The first animal, which was brought improperly, carries the kares penalty, and the second which was brought properly - carries no liability.
We find that the case of the two animals is exactly parallel to the case of the two cups of blood, at least regarding an inner sin offering and at least according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah. However, the second case, of the two animals, is accepted not only by Rabbi Nechemiah but by all the Sages, since it does not relate to the law of the remainder of the blood.
"Keshem shedama poter es besarah kach poter es besar chavertah" - Just as its blood exempts its flesh, so too it exempts the flesh of its counterpart, regarding the law of me'ilah:
The last sentence in the Mishnah deals with the law of me'ilah. A sin offering is consecrated to Hashem and is subject to the law of me'ilah: one who derives monetary benefit from it, such as eating the goat, riding on its back, shearing its hair and making a sack from it, and the like, transgresses me'ilah, because he made unlawful use of consecrated property.
After the slaughter of a regular sin offering, the meat is designated for the kohanim to eat, and the law of me'ilah no longer applies to it, since it is no longer consecrated to Hashem but rather the property of the kohanim. And this is the meaning of "Keshem shedama poter es besarah" - the sprinkling of the blood of a regular sin offering permits the meat; and if a non-kohen ate it, he has indeed transgressed a prohibition, but he does not violate me'ilah, since it is already the food of a kohen, and a kohen who eats it is completely permitted to do so.
"Kach poter es besar chavertah" - so too it exempts the flesh of its counterpart: once he applied the blood of the first animal in the place it needs to be applied, the second animal is no longer valid to be a sin offering; it loses its status as consecrated to Hashem and is no longer subject to the law of me'ilah. It is left to die, and if a person uses it unlawfully, even though he is forbidden to do so, he does not transgress the prohibition of me'ilah.
In summary: In the final Mishnah of the chapter, we learned that even sprinkling in an improper place is subject to the penalty of kares, based on Torah derivations. Our Mishnah was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah, who views the pouring of the remainder of the blood of inner sin offerings as an integral part of the sacrificial service, whereas according to the halachah, there is no kares liability for it. We discussed the law of one who receives its blood in one cup, and the four laws regarding one who receives its blood in two cups: both inside - exempt; both outside - liable, and even twice; one inside and afterwards outside - exempt, since the second cup became invalidated; and one outside and afterwards inside - liable for the outer one, while the inner one is valid and effective. We found a parallel case with two sin offerings where one of them is designated to die, in which those same four laws apply, and this is according to the opinion of all the Sages. Finally, we learned the rule "Keshem shedama poter es besarah kach poter es besar chavertah" - that applying the blood of the first in its proper place removes the sanctity from the second and exempts it from the law of me'ilah. With this, the chapter concludes.