Sifra 3.0.11

Tzav, Chapter 8

1) (Vayikra 6:23) ("And every sin-offering, whereof any of its blood is brought to the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place, shall not be eaten. In fire shall it be burned.") "sin-offering": This tells me only of sin-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From "And every sin-offering." These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yossi Haglili said to him: Akiva, even if you "include" all the day only "sin-offering" is written here. Why, then, is "every" written? I would think that only an individual sin-offering were meant. Whence would I derive the same for communal sin-offerings (such as the goats of Rosh Chodesh and of the festivals)? From "every." This tells me only of a male sin-offering. Whence do I derive the same for a female sin-offering? From "And every sin-offering." R. Eliezer says: The guilt-offering, too, (is included), it being written (Vayikra 7:7): "As the sin-offering, so the guilt-offering."

2) "whereof any of its blood is brought": even part of its blood — whence it was ruled: A sin-offering whose blood was received in two cups — If one of them went outside (the azarah), the inner one is kasher, (the blood applications may be made, and the offering is valid). If one of them went within (the sanctuary), R. Yossi Haglili rules the offering fit with the (application of) the outer blood, and the sages rule it unfit. R. Yossi Haglili said: Now, if in a place where a thought (i.e., where one thought at the time of slaughtering the animal to scatter its blood outside), (that thought of) the outside renders the offering unfit — and yet the outside blood does not render the inside blood unfit — then a place where a thought (i.e., where one thought at the time of slaughtering the animal to apply inside (the sanctuary) the blood that is to be applied outside), (that thought of) the inside does not render the offering unfit — does it not follow that the inner blood should not invalidate the outer blood! They said to him: It is written "of its blood" — even part of its blood (invalidates the offering if it is brought within).

3) He said to them: Now we have an a fortiori argument for blood that goes out (of the azarah)! viz.: If in a place where a thought of bringing the blood inside (the sanctuary) does not render the offering unfit, the blood brought inside (the sanctuary) renders the blood brought outside (it) unfit — then in a place where a thought (of taking the blood) outside (the azarah), renders the offering unfit, does it not follow that blood taken outside (the azarah) should render unfit the inside blood! They said to him: It is written: "(whereof any of its blood is brought) into the tent of meeting (… in fire it shall be burned.") (The blood) that enters (the tent of meeting) renders unfit, and not (the blood) that leaves (the azarah).

4) "to the tent of meeting": This tells me only of the tent of meeting. Whence do I derive that the same applies in Shiloh and in the Temple? From "to make atonement in the holy place." If one went in (with the blood) to make atonement, even if he did not make atonement, it becomes unfit. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer said: It is written here "to make atonement in the holy place," and elsewhere (Vayikra 16:17): ("And no man shall be in the tent of meeting when he (Aaron) comes) to make atonement in the holy place." Just as there ("to make atonement" implies) that he has not (yet) made atonement, here, too, (the implication is) that he has not yet made atonement. R. Shimon says: It is written here "to make atonement in the holy place," and elsewhere (Vayikra 16:27) ("And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought) to make atonement in the holy place (… and they shall burn in fire, etc.") Just as there ("to make atonement" implies) that he has already made atonement, (for burning comes after atonement), here, too, (the implication is) that atonement has already been made, (the blood having been applied to the altar, but his entering alone does not make the blood unfit.) And if he brought it in unwittingly, it remains kasher, (even if he made atonement on the altar).

5) "in the holy place … in fire shall it be burned.": We are hereby taught that it is burned in a holy place (the azarah). This tells me only of this (sin-offering) alone. Whence is it derived that the same applies for invalidated higher order offerings and for the devoted portions of lower order offerings? From "And all … in the holy place … in fire shall it be burned."

6) From here they ruled: The flesh of higher order offerings that became tamei, either by an av hatumah ("proto-tumah") or by a vlad hatumah (generated tumah), whether inside (in the azarah) or outside (the azarah) — Beth Shammai say: All must be burned inside; and Beth Hillel say: All must be burned outside, unless it became tamei by a vlad hatumah inside, (in which case it is burned inside). These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: Beth Shammai say: All is burned inside unless it became tamei by an av hatumah outside, (in which case it is burned outside). And Beth Hillel say: All must be burned outside, unless it became tamei by a vlad hatumah inside.

7) R. Eliezer says: What became tamei by an av hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned outside. What became tamei by a vlad hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned inside. R. Akiva says: What became tamei outside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned outside. What became tamei inside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned inside. R. Eliezer says: "it shall not be eaten; in fire shall it be burned": The intent of Scripture is to add (violation of) a negative commandment (in addition to the positive "in fire shall be burned") for eating it.

8) R. Yossi Haglili says: This entire section ("it shall not be eaten, etc.") applies (not to a sin-offering, but) to (unfit) bullocks which are to be burnt and unfit he-goats which are to be burned, to add (violation of) a negative commandment for eating it, to teach that their unfit offerings are burned before the Temple. They asked him: Whence, then, is it to be derived that (an outer) sin-offering whose blood entered inside (the sanctuary) becomes unfit? He answered: From (Vayikra 10:18): "Behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary within. (You should have eaten it in the sanctuary," and not burned it, the implication being that if it had entered within, it, indeed, should have been burned.)