the Writ speaks of two modes of profanation, viz., the disqualification of nothar and the disqualification of defilement. (1) EXCEPT BLOOD, etc. Whence do we know it? — Said ‘Ulla, Scripture saith, [For the life of the flesh is in the blood,.] and I have given it to you [upon the altar to make atonement for your souls]:2 [this teaches,] it is yours. (3) The school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘To make atonement’ [implies] but not for trespass. R. Johanan said: Scripture saith, it is [which intimates,] it is before atonement as after atonement: as there is no trespass after atonement, (4) so there is no trespass before atonement. Say, it is after atonement as before atonement: as it involves trespass before atonement, (5) so it involves trespass after atonement? — Nothing involves trespass once its function is performed. Does it not? But lo, there are the separated ashes? (6) — That is because the separated ashes and the priestly vestments (7) are [taught in] two texts which come for the same purpose, (8) and wherever two texts come for the same purpose, they do not illumine [other cases]. (9) That is well according to the Rabbis who maintain that, [And Aaron... shall put off the linen garments... ] and shall leave them there (10) teaches that they must be stored away. (11) But what can be said on the view of R. Dosa, who maintained [that] they are permitted to an ordinary priest, only that he [the High Priest] does not use them on another Day of Atonement? — Because the separated ashes and the beheaded heifer (12) are [taught in] two texts which come for the same purpose, and wherever two texts come for the same purpose, they do not illumine [other cases]. That is well on the view that they do not illumine; but what can be said on the view that they do illumine? — Two limitations are written: (13) here is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken; (14) while there it says, [And he shall take up the ashes...] and he shall put them [beside the altar]. (15) Now, why do I need three texts in connection with blood? (16) One excludes it from trespass, another from nothar, and a third from defilement. (17) But no text is required for Piggul for we learnt: Whatever has mattirin, whether for man or for the altar, involves liability on account of Piggul: whereas blood is itself a Mattir. R. Johanan said: For what purpose is kareth stated three times in connection with peace-offerings? (18)

---

(1). ↑ The two profanations are deduced from the fact that Scripture employs a longer form, yehallelu (profane) instead of yehallu.
(2). ↑ For it is — Hu — the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. (Lev. XVII, 11).
(3). ↑ ‘Ulla said this in reference to trespass: ‘it is yours’ means that in respect of trespass it is treated as secular, and so involves no offering for misappropriation. The deductions by the school of R. Ishmael and R. Johanan which follow, point to the same conclusion. Thus we have three texts showing that blood does not involve trespass; since three are unnecessary for this purpose, they are ultimately employed to teach that blood does not involve liability in respect of nothar, trespass, and defilement.
(4). ↑ After the blood has been sprinkled and atonement thereby made, there is no trespass in putting it to secular use, since it is no longer required for a sacred purpose.
(5). ↑ This would have to be assumed in default of a text to the contrary. R. Johanan of course does not deduce the contrary from the other texts.
(6). ↑ A shovelful of ashes was removed every day from the altar and placed at the east side of the altar, where they might not be used, though their function had already been performed, but left to become absorbed in their place.
(7). ↑ The four additional vestments worn by the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. On leaving it he removed them, and they might not be put to secular use. Both these cases are deduced from Scriptural texts.
(8). ↑ In both trespass is involved after their function has been fulfilled.
(9). ↑ For if they were to serve as an illustration for others, one only need be stated, and the other, together with other cases, would follow.
(10). ↑ Lev. XVI, 23.
(11). ↑ And not used. Thus there are two such instances.
(12). ↑ V. Deut. XXI, 9. The Rabbis deduce from the superfluous ‘there’ in the passage, and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley (v. 4), that the heifer must be buried there and not put to any use.
(13). ↑ Sh. M. deletes ‘two’.
(14). ↑ Deut. XXI v. 6; lit. ‘the broken-necked’. The deduction is from the article ‘the’: only this animal whose function has been performed may still not be used, but no other similar sacred animal, i.e., one whose function has been performed, may not be used.
(15). ↑ Lev. VI, 3. Here too ‘them’ implies, only these ashes may not be used in such a case, but other sacred things may be used after their function has been performed.
(16). ↑ To show that blood does not involve trespass. This is the completion of the answer to the question, ‘How do we know that blood does not create liability for nothar’, etc., as explained p.
(231). ↑ n. 7.
(17). ↑ I.e., that blood does not involve culpability on account of these.
(18). ↑ V. Lev. VII, 20, 21; XXII, 3.