The Mishnah (13:8) discussed two laws regarding a sin-offering whose blood was sprinkled both inside and outside the Beit Ha’Mikdash.
If the blood was collected in one cup, then it is irrelevant whether
it was first sprinkled inside or outside. In both cases one has transgressed the prohibition of engaging in an offering outside the Beit Ha’Mikdash.
If the blood was collected in two cups then if one cup was offered
inside first then the other cup offered outside, the person is exempt. If it is the other way around, then the person has transgressed the prohibition.
The Gemara (112a) questions the validity of these two laws. In the first case, the Gemara argues that once some of the blood has been sprinkled inside, the remaining blood is considering shirayim (“leftover”) and should not fall under the prohibition of offering a sacrifice outside the Beit Ha’Mikdash. The Gemara answers that this law is according to the opinion of R’ Nechemya who holds that the remainder of a chatat pnimit is an essential part of the offering and one is therefore transgressing the prohibition if “offered” outside the Beit Ha’Mikdash.
With that response in hand, the Gemara then questions the second law. In other words, the second cup offered outside should be considered shirayim and according to R’ Nechemya, one would be liable. The Gemara responds that this law is according to R’ Elazar B’R’ Shimon who maintains that once one cup is offered, the other is considered dachui (“pushed aside”) and unsuitable for use in the Beit Ha’Mikdash and therefore does not fall under the prohibition.
With respect to these two laws, the Rambam (Ma’aseh Korbanot ) rules as follows:
If the blood was collected in one cup, if it was first offered
inside then offered outside the person is exempt.
If the blood was collected in two cups, whether or not the cup that
was offered outside was first or second, the prohibition has been violated.
The first law is consistent with our understanding gleaned from the Gemara. The Rambam does not rule like R’ Nechemya, consequently if the blood was first offered inside, the remainder in that cup is considered shirayim. The Ra’avad questions the validity of the second law. If the first cup was offered inside, then according to all opinions one should not be chayav when offering blood from the second cup outside – it is either shirayim or dachui!
R’ Chayim Brisker (Al HaRambam) explains that there is difference whether the remaining blood is considered shirayim or dachui. Blood that is considered shirayim has a special din in that even though the blood originally was not suitable to be poured out at the base of the mizbeach, once the sprinkling has been performed the remaining blood has a new din (status/law). This is not the case by blood that is dachui – it has no special din. Simply, since one cup was used to complete the offering of the korban, the second one is no longer needed. Here the sprinkling per se does not create a new din.
R’ Chaim provides a practical difference between shirayim and dachui. We have learnt previously that with respect to sacrifices offered in the courtyard, even though ideally some sacrifices require multiple sprinklings of blood, one sprinkling would suffice (4:1). Consequently, once one sprinkling has been performed, even though there is a still a mitzvah to complete the (ideally) required sprinklings, the blood has a din of shirayim. We find therefore that the blood can have a din of shirayim even prior to all the sprinkling being performed. This is not the case by dachui. The blood only becomes dachui by virtue of the fact that everything is complete, no more sprinkling is required – we have no use for that second cup. Consequently blood can only be considered dachui once the performance of the sacrifice is complete.
This distinction explains the Rambam. In the beginning of the Halacha he states that we are referring to a case where only part of the required sprinkling has been performed. In such a case this distinction is significant, as the blood remaining in the case of the single cup already has the din of shirayim and outside the bounds of the prohibition of offering a sacrifice outside the Beit Ha’Mikdash. In the case of two cups, the second cup does not yet have the status of dachui as the offering is incomplete. Consequently the prohibition would be violated if blood from the second cup was offered outside. R’ Chaim explains that when the Gemara discusses the exemption of dachui it refers to when the first cup was used inside to complete all the requirements of the sacrifice, after which the second cup is considered dachui.
Receive our publication with an in depth article and revision questions.
Listen to the new Mishnah Shiurim by Yisrael Bankier