Menachot 27b

שֶׁאִם חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם.

to teach that if one omitted one of the placements of blood, he has done nothing.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבַע הַזָּאוֹת שֶׁבַּפָּרָה, שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן – בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת אֶל נֹכַח פְּנֵי אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵד – פְּסוּלוֹת.

§ The Sages taught in a baraita : If the priest performed the seven sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer improperly, either by performing them not for their own sake or performing them not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, they are not valid.

וְשֶׁבִּפְנִים, וְשֶׁבִּמְצוֹרָע – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, פְּסוּלוֹת; שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת, כְּשֵׁרוֹת.

But with regard to the sprinkling of the blood that takes place inside the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled “before the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 4:6), and the sprinkling of the oil that takes place during the purification of the leper, which is done “seven times before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed not for their own sake, then they are not valid. But if they are performed not precisely toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, they are valid.

וְהָתַנְיָא גַּבֵּי פָּרָה: שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא מְכוָּּונוֹת – כְּשֵׁרוֹת. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning the sprinklings of the blood of the red heifer that if they were performed not for their own sake, they are not valid, but if they were performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, they are valid? Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult; this second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, whereas that first baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

דְּתַנְיָא: מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעֲזָרָה בְּשׁוֹגֵג – חַיָּיב חַטָּאת, בְּמֵזִיד – עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר טְבוּל יוֹם וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַטְּמֵאִים.

As it is taught in a baraita ( Tosefta , Kelim 1:10): With regard to those who have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, who entered the Temple courtyard unwittingly, they are liable to bring a sin offering. If they entered intentionally, then this is punishable by karet . And needless to say, the same applies to one who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed and all the others who are ritually impure and have not yet immersed.

וּטְהוֹרִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִפְנִים מִמְּחִיצָתָן, לַהֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ – בְּאַרְבָּעִים, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת – בְּמִיתָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ וּמִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת – בְּאַרְבָּעִים, וְאֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת – בְּמִיתָה.

And with regard to those who are pure who entered beyond their boundaries, i.e., beyond where it is permitted for them to enter, such as a priest who enters the Sanctuary for a purpose other than performing the Temple service, if one entered any part of the Sanctuary, he is liable to receive forty lashes. If he entered within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, i.e., into the Holy of Holies, or he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he entered any part of the Sanctuary or within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, he is liable to receive forty lashes; but if he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was before the Ark Cover, he is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בְּהַאי קְרָא: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאַל יָבוֹא בְכׇל עֵת אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל הָאָרוֹן וְלֹא יָמוּת״. רַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ – בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״ וְ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ – בְּ״לֹא יָמוּת״.

With regard to what issue do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree? They disagree with regard to the proper understanding of this verse: “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die” (Leviticus 16:2). The Rabbis hold that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies and before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וּ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״ – בְּ״לֹא יָבֹא״, וְ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ – בְּ״לֹא יָמוּת״.

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that entering into the holy place, i.e., the Sanctuary, and within the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is subject to the prohibition of: He shall not come, and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering before the Ark Cover is subject to the warning of: He shall not die, and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וְ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָל מִיחַיַּיב, מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת מִבַּעְיָא? ״מִבֵּית הַפָּרֹכֶת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בְּמִיתָה.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the interpretation of the Rabbis? The Gemara answers: If it should enter your mind to explain the verse as Rabbi Yehuda says, then let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and before the Ark Cover that he not die, and there is no need to write “within the Curtain,” and I would say: If one becomes liable to receive lashes for even entering the Sanctuary, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering within the Curtain? Why do I need the phrase “within the Curtain” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וְלָא כְּתַב ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קוֹדֶשׁ – מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת, אֲבָל הֵיכָל לָאו נָמֵי לָא. וְרַבָּנַן: הָהוּא לָא מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ, דְּהֵיכָל כּוּלּוֹ אִיקְּרִי ״קוֹדֶשׁ״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִבְדִּילָה הַפָּרֹכֶת לָכֶם בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״.

And Rabbi Yehuda understands: If the Merciful One had written only that it is prohibited to come “into the holy place” and did not write “within the Curtain,” I would say: What is the holy place? It is within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, but if one enters the Sanctuary he does not even violate a prohibition. And the Rabbis respond to this claim: You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called “the holy place,” as it is stated: “And the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies” (Exodus 26:33).

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּדְקָא אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן, לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל הַקּוֹדֶשׁ״ וּ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״, וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא: ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרוֹכֶת״ בְּמִיתָה, ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ מִיבַּעְיָא? ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ בְּמִיתָה, ״מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת״ בְּאַזְהָרָה.

And what is the reason for the interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda? Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that if it should enter your mind to explain as the Rabbis say, that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, let the Merciful One write: That he not come at all times into the holy place and within the Curtain that he not die, and there is no need to write “before the Ark Cover.” And I would say: If entering within the Curtain, i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, is it necessary to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering before the Ark Cover? Why do I need the phrase “before the Ark Cover” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that entering before the Ark Cover is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, but entering within the Curtain merely violates a prohibition.

וְרַבָּנַן? [אִין] הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא צְרִיךְ, וְהַאי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ לְמַעוֹטֵי דֶּרֶךְ מְשׁוּפָּשׁ.

And the Rabbis understand: Indeed, it is so that in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it is not necessary for the verse to also state “before the Ark Cover.” And the reason that the Merciful One wrote “before [ el penei ] the Ark Cover” was in order to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path, as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

כִּדְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת קֵדְמָה״ – זֶה בָּנָה אָב, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״פְּנֵי״ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא פְּנֵי קָדִים.

This is as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught: With regard to the verse: “And he shall sprinkle it with his finger before [ el penei ] the Ark Cover to the east” (Leviticus 16:14), this established a paradigm that any place in the Torah where it is stated: “Before [ penei ],” it is referring to nothing other than before the eastern side.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לֵימָא קְרָא ״פְּנֵי״, מַאי ״אֶל״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ ״אֶל״ דַּוְקָא, וְרַבָּנַן – ״אֶל״ לָאו דַּוְקָא.

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to this, as it is clear that the term “before [ el penei ] the Ark Cover” is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, let the verse say: Before [ penei ] the Ark Cover. What is the purpose of the word el ? Learn from that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven specifically if he entered directly before the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. And the Rabbis hold that the term “ el ” does not mean specifically one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת״ דַּוְקָא, וְ״הִזָּה אֶל נֹכַח״ נָמֵי דַּוְקָא.

The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two baraitot with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the expression “before [ el penei ] the Ark Cover” teaches that the punishment is limited to one who specifically entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: “And sprinkle of its blood toward [ el ] the front” (Numbers 19:4), also means that the sprinklings must be performed specifically toward the front of the Sanctuary.

וְרַבָּנַן: מִדְּהָתָם לָאו דַּוְקָא, הָכָא נָמֵי לָאו דַּוְקָא.

And the Rabbis are of the opinion that from the fact that there the term el does not mean specifically that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, here too they hold that it is not meant specifically, and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מִדְּ״אֶל״ דַּוְקָא, (אֶל נֹכַח) [עַל] נָמֵי דַּוְקָא? אֶלָּא דְּמִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי דְּלָא הֲווֹ אָרוֹן וְכַפּוֹרֶת, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא עָבֵיד הַזָּאוֹת?

Rav Yosef objects to this explanation: According to Rabbi Yehuda, from the fact that there the term el is used specifically, the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood before [ al penei ] the Ark Cover” (Leviticus 16:14) should also mean that the sprinkling must be performed specifically upon the Ark Cover. But in the time of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, would Rabbi Yehuda then say that indeed the sprinklings were not performed? This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see Yoma 53b).

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר אֶת מִקְדַּשׁ הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – מְקוֹם הַמְקוּדָּשׁ לַקּוֹדֶשׁ.

Rabba bar Ulla said in response: The verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place [ mikdash hakodesh ]” (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [ hakodesh ], but even on the place that is dedicated [ hamkudash ] for the Ark [ lakodesh ].

רָבָא אָמַר: הָא וְהָא רַבָּנַן,

The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the baraitot concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis: