For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 81
To download, click/tap here: PDF
A new Mishnah states If blood that requires sprinkling inside became mixed up with that which requires sprinkling outside - it must be poured out into the canal. If he sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. If he applied it inside and then outside, Rabbi Akiva rules that it is invalid, but the Sages rule that it’s valid, for Rabbi Akiva used to say: Any blood that was brought into the Sanctuary to make atonement is invalid. But the Sages say: Only the chatas.
Rav Yehuda introduces Shmuel's parable with a question: how does Rabbi Akiva derive his expansive principle from a verse that explicitly mentions only sin offerings? The answer arrives in narrative form:
To what is this matter comparable? To a student who mixed wine with hot water for his teacher. And the teacher said to him: Mix another drink for me. The student said to him: With what should I mix the wine, hot or cold water? The teacher said to him: Aren't we dealing with hot water? Now that I requested that you mix me another cup, I mean that you should mix it either in hot water or in cold. Otherwise, the teacher would not have needed to say anything.
We explore the use of the Mashal as a hermeneutic gateway so when Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel's mashal comparing scriptural interpretation to a student mixing wine for his teacher, he introduces not merely an illustrative analogy but a complete hermeneutical theory compressed into narrative form.