Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara brings a braita in which a Tanna offers an alternative interpretation to explain Beit Hillel’s reasoning – that one application of blood in the sin offering is sufficient to fulfill the obligation, rather than two. Two objections are raised against this interpretation, and in the second objection, an alternative drasha is proposed. However, both objections are ultimately resolved.
If, according to Beit Shammai, pigul applies only when the improper intent occurs during two applications of blood (in a sin offering), whereas according to Beit Hillel even one is sufficient, the question arises: why is this ruling not listed among the leniencies of Beit Shammai?
Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Pappa enumerate various laws in which the three non-essential applications of blood are similar to or different from the one essential application.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Sarah Zahavi for the continued health and good outcome for Talia Nechama bat Chana.
Today’s daf is sponsored in honor of Judy Berman. “We celebrate Judy’s incredible achievement of completing Seder Nezikin and making a Siyum in the SNAC community of Netanya. With love from her children and grandchildren in Israel and Teaneck.”
Zevachim 38
הָתָם חַד קְרָא – כּוּלֵּיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד – לִסְכָכָה; אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא, וּגְרַעְתַּהּ לִשְׁלִישִׁית וְאוֹקֵימְתַּהּ אַטֶּפַח.
The Gemara answers: There, one of the five indicated by the verse is needed entirely for the mitzva itself, i.e., to teach the basic halakha that one must dwell in a sukka. And another one of the five is needed to teach that a sukka, as is indicated by its name, must have a covering [sekhakha]. Accordingly, there are three left, alluding to the requirement that a sukka must have three walls. The Gemara adds that the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the size of the third wall, teaching that it need not be complete, and sets its minimum length at only one handbreadth.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם״ – ״שִׁבְעִים״; אַהֲנִי קְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – אַרְבְּעִים וּתְרֵין בָּעֲיָא לְמֵיתַב!
The Gemara raises yet another objection: If that is so, that both the vocalized and the consonantal texts are taken into account, consider the case of a woman who gives birth to a female child. Concerning this woman the verse states: “But if she bear a female child, then she shall be impure two weeks [shevu’ayim], as in her menstruation” (Leviticus 12:5). The way that the word is written allows it to be read as shivim, seventy. Why not say that the vocalized text of the Torah is effective, teaching us that the woman is ritually impure for fourteen days, and the consonantal text is also effective, teaching us that she is impure for seventy days, and, therefore, she should be required to sit in a state of ritual impurity for forty-two days, which is the halfway point between fourteen and seventy days?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״כְּנִדָּתָהּ״.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, and the consonantal text is disregarded entirely, as it is written: “As in her menstruation,” and a menstruating woman is impure for one week. Evidently, the verse is speaking in terms of weeks, and is not alluding to the number seventy at all.
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ – מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין.
§ The Gemara further analyzes the opinion of Beit Hillel that even in the case of a sin offering, if the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement. And a tanna cites proof for this from here, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering brought by a king: “And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to the goat brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: “And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to the sheep brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: “And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:35). The repetition of this term is due to a logical inference.
שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה; מָה מַתַּן דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַטָּה – שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּיפֵּר; אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַעְלָה – שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּיפֵּר.
As one might have thought to say: Could this not be derived through logical inference as follows: It is stated that blood is placed below the red line, and it is stated that blood is placed above the red line. Just as with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is placed below the red line, when the priest placed it on the altar with one placement he facilitated atonement, so too, with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is placed above the red line, when the priest placed it on the altar with one placement he facilitated atonement.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים בִּפְנִים, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים בַּחוּץ; מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בִּפְנִים – חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם; אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּחוּץ – חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
Or perhaps, go this way, turning away from the previous explanation and toward this explanation: It is stated that blood is presented on the inner altar, i.e., with regard to a sin offering of the community or of the High Priest; the blood of these offerings is sprinkled on the incense altar that is inside the Sanctuary. And it is stated that blood is presented on the external altar, i.e., with regard to the sin offering of an ordinary person, which is offered on the outer altar that is in the courtyard. Just as with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is presented on the inner altar, if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing, i.e., the offering is not valid, so too, with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is presented on the external altar, if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה. דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים; אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ – דָּנִין חַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת, מֵחַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת; וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ חוּץ – שֶׁאֵין חַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת?
The Gemara analyzes the two possibilities: Let us see to which of the two cases the blood of an animal sin offering is more similar. It can be claimed: We derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the external altar, but we do not derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the inner altar. Or, go this way: We derive a halakha stated with regard to a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar from a halakha stated with regard to a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar. But a sin offering consisting of a bird, which is not a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar, cannot serve as proof to the halakha concerning an animal sin offering, whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ (מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין); ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא אַחַת.
Since both of the above inferences are reasonable, neither can serve as the source of the halakha. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement,” “And the priest shall make atonement,” “And the priest shall make atonement,” for a total of three times. The verses are interpreted as follows: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed only three placements. Subsequently: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed only two placements, and then: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed only one placement. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel’s opinion.
וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אָמַר רָבָא: בַּר אַדָּא מָרִי אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי – אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר… וְנִסְלַח״ – זוֹ הִיא כַּפָּרָה זוֹ הִיא סְלִיחָה.
The Gemara challenges: But each of these verses is necessary for itself, to teach that atonement is achieved for each of the sins through its respective sin offering. Rava said: Bar Adda Mari explained this matter to me: The verse states with regard to each of these sin offerings: “And the priest shall make atonement…and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35). This is atonement and this is forgiveness; they are one and the same. Since it would have sufficed to say: “And he shall be forgiven,” the superfluous mentions of the phrase: “And the priest shall make atonement,” serve to teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he has not performed all the placements.
אֵימָא ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ לְמַעְלָה וְאַחַת לְמַטָּה, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם לְמַטָּה וּשְׁתַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לְמַעְלָה אֶלָּא לְמַטָּה!
The Gemara asks: But even if these phrases are superfluous, do they necessarily indicate that a priest who omitted placements has nevertheless facilitated atonement? Why not say that these phrases serve to teach that if the priest placed all the placements he facilitated atonement even if the placements were placed in the wrong place? And expound the verses as follows: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above, on the corners of the altar, and one below, on the lower portion of the altar; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he did not place the blood above at all, but only below.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר יִצְחָק: אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ תּוֹרַת אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת. וְאִי רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר, לִיבַּטְלוּן!
Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak says: If so, that the priest facilitates atonement even if he placed all the placements below, you have abolished the requirement of four corners that is stated with regard to the sin offering (see, e.g., Leviticus 4:34), as the four corners are on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara is puzzled by Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak’s claim: But if the Merciful One states that this is so, let this requirement be abolished.
אָמַר רָבָא: אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שָׁלֹשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ קְרָנוֹת.
As Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak’s claim was rejected, Rava said there is a different reason why the previous claim cannot be accepted: What is the item that requires three repetitions of “and the priest shall make atonement,” i.e., to what are these verses referring? You must say that these are the corners of the altar. The Torah must teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he did not place the blood on three of the four corners. But in order for the verses to teach that all four placements can be placed below, the phrase “and the priest shall make atonement” would have to be written four times.
אֵימָא: ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשָׁלֹשׁ לְמַטָּה!
The Gemara asks further: Even so, it is possible to interpret the three repetitions of the phrase “and the priest shall make atonement” as referring to the location of the placements, without abolishing the requirement of corners, as one can say: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even though he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above and one below; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even though he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even though he placed the blood with only one placement above and three below.
לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין לְמַעְלָה וְחֶצְיָין לְמַטָּה. וְלָא?! וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה!
The Gemara answers: This entire line of inquiry can be rejected, as we do not find a case involving blood, half of which is placed above the red line and half of which is placed below it. One either places all the blood on the lower half of the altar, as in the case of most offerings, or all of it on the upper half of the altar, as in the case of sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 53b): The High Priest took the blood of the bull into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled from the blood one time upward and then seven times downward? Apparently, part of the blood of an offering can be sprinkled upward, toward the upper part of the Ark Cover, and part can be placed downward, toward the lower part of the Ark Cover.
כְּמַצְלִיף. מַאי כְּמַצְלִיף? מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה: כִּמְנַגְּדָנָא.
The Gemara rejects this: That is not a case where half the blood is sprinkled upward and half is sprinkled downward. Instead, that sprinkling was like a matzlif. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of like a matzlif? Rav Yehuda demonstrated with his hand; it means like one who whips. One who whips another does not strike repeatedly in one place but directs one lash beneath the other.
הִזָּה עַל טׇהֳרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים.
The Gemara further asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 58b) about the Yom Kippur service: After the High Priest sprinkled blood on the four corners of the incense altar, he sprinkled blood seven times on tohoro of the altar.
מַאי, לָאו אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ – כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״טְהַר טִיהֲרָא דְּיוֹמָא״? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא, אַגִּילּוּיֵיהּ; דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״.
What, is it not referring to the middle of the side of the altar, as people say: Clear noon [tihara], that is the middle of the day? Accordingly, the root tet, heh, reish denotes the middle; in the one case, the middle of the day, and in the other case, halfway up the altar. Now, since the blood was sprinkled on the altar seven times, inevitably some of the blood landed above the midpoint and some of it landed below the midpoint. Rava bar Sheila said: No, that is not the meaning of tohoro. Rather, tohoro means on the revealed part, i.e., the top, of the altar, as it is written: “Like the very clear [latohar] sky” (Exodus 24:10). Tohoro is referring to the top of the altar when it has been revealed, after the ashes of the incense are cleared and the pure gold is visible.
וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם! שִׁירַיִם לָא מְעַכְּבִי.
The Gemara asks again: Is there not a case where some of the blood is presented above the red line and some of it is presented below? But there is the remainder of the blood, which is poured on the base of the altar even in the case of a sin offering, the main blood of which is placed on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara answers: The pouring of the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not indispensable for atonement. Blood that is indispensable for atonement is in no instance presented half above the red line and half below it.
וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם הַפְּנִימִים, דְּאִיכָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְעַכְּבִי! בְּחַד מָקוֹם קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara continues this line of questioning: But there is the remainder of the blood of the inner sin offerings, the main blood of which is sprinkled on the inner altar. The remainder of the blood of these offerings is poured on the base of the external altar, and there is one who says that this pouring of the blood is indispensable for atonement. The Gemara explains: When we said that there is no blood, half of which is presented above and half below, we said this with regard to one place, i.e., the same altar. The blood of inner sin offerings is sprinkled on the inner altar, while the remainder of that blood is poured on the base of the external altar. There is no case of blood, half of which is presented above and half of which is presented below on the same altar.
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת, וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתִּירוֹת וּמְפַגְּלוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, in the case of a sin offering two placements facilitate atonement, while with regard to other offerings a single placement is sufficient. Beit Hillel disagree and say that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices after the fact. With regard to this issue, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Beit Shammai say that two placements in the case of a sin offering, and one placement in the case of other offerings, they render the offering permitted for eating since these actions facilitate atonement after the fact, despite the fact that blood was not placed on all four corners of the altar. And similarly they render the offering piggul. That is to say, if the priest placed two placements of the blood of a sin offering or one placement of the blood of any another offering, intending to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul.
בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתֶּרֶת וּמְפַגֶּלֶת.
Beit Hillel say: One placement in the case of a sin offering, and likewise one placement in the case of all the other offerings, if done with proper intent, renders the offering permitted for eating and, if done with improper intent, renders the offering piggul.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל!
Rav Oshaya objects to this: If so, let this halakha be taught in the fourth chapter of tractate Eduyyot alongside the other rare cases of Beit Shammai’s leniencies and Beit Hillel’s stringencies. According to Beit Hillel, a sin offering is piggul even if the priest intended to partake of it beyond its designated time even while performing a single placement, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that the offering is piggul only if he had this improper intent during two placements.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כִּי אִיתְּשִׁיל – לְהֶתֵּירָא אִיתְּשִׁיל; דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.
Rava said to Rav Oshaya: When this question was initially asked, and the Sages stated their opinions concerning the matter, it was asked with regard to the permission to partake of the sin offering. In other words, the dispute arose as a result of an inquiry into the other relevant halakha, i.e., whether the priests may partake of a sin offering, the blood of which was placed only one time. In this case it is Beit Shammai who are more stringent, as they permit the meat of a sin offering only after two placements have been placed. For this reason, this case was not listed among the other leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאוֹת – אֵינָן בָּאוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Despite the fact that, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, the last three placements in the case of a sin offering are not indispensable to the atonement, they may not be performed at night, because the blood is invalidated at sunset. And these three placements may be performed after the death of the owner. If the owner of the offering died before any of the blood was placed on the altar, the blood may not be placed, and the offering is burned as a disqualified offering. But if he died after one placement, the priest may perform the other three placements, as he has already facilitated atonement by means of the first placement. And as it is a mitzva to perform these three placements on the altar, one who offers this blood up on an altar outside the Temple is liable to receive karet, the punishment received by one who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יֵשׁ מֵהֶן כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּסוֹפוֹ;
Rav Pappa says: There are some respects in which the blood of the last three placements of a sin offering is treated like the blood presented at the outset, i.e., like the blood of the first placement, and there are some respects in which the blood of the last three placements is treated like the blood presented at the end, i.e., like the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.
חוּץ, וְלַיְלָה, זָרוּת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, קֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, כִּיבּוּס, וְשִׁירַיִם – כִּתְחִלָּתָן;
Rav Pappa elaborates: With regard to liability for presenting blood outside the Temple, and concerning the prohibition against presenting blood at night, and with regard to the disqualification of a non-priest from presenting blood and his liability for death at the hand of Heaven if he presents blood in the Temple, and with regard to the requirement that the blood that is to be presented must first be placed in a service vessel, and that the blood must be placed on the corner of the altar, and that the placement must be performed with the priest’s finger, and concerning the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, and finally with regard to the requirement of pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, the last three placements are treated like blood presented at the outset, i.e., like the first placement.
וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לָא שָׁרְיָא, וְלָא מְפַגְּלָא, וְלָא עָיְילָא לְגַוַּאי – כְּסוֹפָן.
But these last three placements may be performed after the death of the owner; and they do not render the offering permitted for eating, as that was already achieved by means of the first placement; nor do they render the offering piggul if during these placements the priest intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time; and similarly, they are not governed by the halakha that if the blood enters inside the Sanctuary the sin offering is disqualified. With regard to all these matters the blood of the last three placements is treated like the blood presented at the end, i.e., like the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: נִיתַּז מִן הַצַּוָּאר עַל הַבֶּגֶד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִן הַקֶּרֶן וּמִן הַיְסוֹד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לְקֶרֶן – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
With regard to the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, Rav Pappa said: From where do I say that this halakha applies even to the blood of the last three placements? It is as we learned in a mishna (93a): If the blood of a sin offering sprayed directly from the neck of the animal onto a garment, that garment does not require laundering, as the blood had never been received in a vessel. Likewise, if the blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar after having been placed there, or from the base of the altar after the remainder was poured there, the garment does not require laundering. It may be inferred from here that blood that sprayed from the corner of the altar does not require laundering. But blood that is fit to be placed on the corner, as it has not yet been placed, requires laundering, and the blood of the last three placements is indeed fit to be placed on the corner of the altar.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִן הַיְסוֹד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס – הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לַיְסוֹד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס?! ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ כְּתִיב – פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁכְּבָר הוּזָּה!
The Gemara rejects this proof: But according to your reasoning, one can claim in the same manner that it is only blood that sprayed from the base of the altar that does not require laundering; but blood that is fit for the base of the altar, i.e., what remains of the blood after it has been placed on the corners, requires laundering. This is difficult, as it is written: “And when there will be sprinkled [yizze] of its blood upon any garment” (Leviticus 6:20). The future form of the word yizze serves to exclude this blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar, as it has already been sprinkled.
הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה; דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabbi Neḥemya says: With regard to the remainder of the blood of an offering, which was to be poured at the base of the altar, if one presented it outside the Temple, he is liable. Since Rabbi Neḥemya treats the remainder of the blood as blood with regard to liability for a service performed outside the Temple, he also treats the remainder of the blood of a sin offering as blood with regard to laundering. Accordingly, Rav Pappa’s inference from the previously cited mishna is valid only according to Rabbi Neḥemya, but not according to the majority opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – לְעִנְיַן הַעֲלָאָה, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵי אַאֵיבָרִים וּפְדָרִים; לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס – מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?! אִין;
The Gemara challenges the proof even according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya: Say that you heard that Rabbi Neḥemya ruled in this manner with regard to the offering up of the remainder of the blood outside the Temple, just as is the case with regard to limbs and fats. Even though the offering of the limbs and fats is not indispensable for atonement, one who offers them outside the Temple is liable. But did you also hear him say this with regard to laundering, that one must launder a garment sprayed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering? The Gemara answers: Yes, we also heard Rabbi Neḥemya rule in this manner with regard to laundering.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevachim Daf 30-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 38: When Beit Hillel Turns Stringent and Beit Shammai Lenient
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Richmond, CA, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
Berlin, Germany
Zevachim 38
הָתָם חַד קְרָא – כּוּלֵּיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ, וְחַד – לִסְכָכָה; אֲתַאי הִלְכְתָא, וּגְרַעְתַּהּ לִשְׁלִישִׁית וְאוֹקֵימְתַּהּ אַטֶּפַח.
The Gemara answers: There, one of the five indicated by the verse is needed entirely for the mitzva itself, i.e., to teach the basic halakha that one must dwell in a sukka. And another one of the five is needed to teach that a sukka, as is indicated by its name, must have a covering [sekhakha]. Accordingly, there are three left, alluding to the requirement that a sukka must have three walls. The Gemara adds that the halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai comes and reduces the size of the third wall, teaching that it need not be complete, and sets its minimum length at only one handbreadth.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״וְטָמְאָה שְׁבֻעַיִם״ – ״שִׁבְעִים״; אַהֲנִי קְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – אַרְבְּעִים וּתְרֵין בָּעֲיָא לְמֵיתַב!
The Gemara raises yet another objection: If that is so, that both the vocalized and the consonantal texts are taken into account, consider the case of a woman who gives birth to a female child. Concerning this woman the verse states: “But if she bear a female child, then she shall be impure two weeks [shevu’ayim], as in her menstruation” (Leviticus 12:5). The way that the word is written allows it to be read as shivim, seventy. Why not say that the vocalized text of the Torah is effective, teaching us that the woman is ritually impure for fourteen days, and the consonantal text is also effective, teaching us that she is impure for seventy days, and, therefore, she should be required to sit in a state of ritual impurity for forty-two days, which is the halfway point between fourteen and seventy days?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״כְּנִדָּתָהּ״.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, and the consonantal text is disregarded entirely, as it is written: “As in her menstruation,” and a menstruating woman is impure for one week. Evidently, the verse is speaking in terms of weeks, and is not alluding to the number seventy at all.
וְתַנָּא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ – מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין.
§ The Gemara further analyzes the opinion of Beit Hillel that even in the case of a sin offering, if the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement. And a tanna cites proof for this from here, as it was taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering brought by a king: “And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to the goat brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: “And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to the sheep brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: “And the priest shall make atonement for him” (Leviticus 4:35). The repetition of this term is due to a logical inference.
שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה; מָה מַתַּן דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַטָּה – שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּיפֵּר; אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַעְלָה – שֶׁנְּתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת, כִּיפֵּר.
As one might have thought to say: Could this not be derived through logical inference as follows: It is stated that blood is placed below the red line, and it is stated that blood is placed above the red line. Just as with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is placed below the red line, when the priest placed it on the altar with one placement he facilitated atonement, so too, with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is placed above the red line, when the priest placed it on the altar with one placement he facilitated atonement.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ: נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים בִּפְנִים, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים בַּחוּץ; מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בִּפְנִים – חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם; אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִין בַּחוּץ – חִיסֵּר אַחַת מִן הַמַּתָּנוֹת, לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
Or perhaps, go this way, turning away from the previous explanation and toward this explanation: It is stated that blood is presented on the inner altar, i.e., with regard to a sin offering of the community or of the High Priest; the blood of these offerings is sprinkled on the incense altar that is inside the Sanctuary. And it is stated that blood is presented on the external altar, i.e., with regard to the sin offering of an ordinary person, which is offered on the outer altar that is in the courtyard. Just as with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is presented on the inner altar, if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing, i.e., the offering is not valid, so too, with regard to the blood concerning which it is stated that it is presented on the external altar, if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing.
נִרְאֶה לְמִי דּוֹמֶה. דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים; אוֹ כַּלֵּךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ – דָּנִין חַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת, מֵחַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת; וְאַל יוֹכִיחַ חוּץ – שֶׁאֵין חַטָּאת וְאַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת?
The Gemara analyzes the two possibilities: Let us see to which of the two cases the blood of an animal sin offering is more similar. It can be claimed: We derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the external altar, but we do not derive a halakha stated with regard to the external altar from a halakha stated with regard to the inner altar. Or, go this way: We derive a halakha stated with regard to a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar from a halakha stated with regard to a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar. But a sin offering consisting of a bird, which is not a sin offering whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar, cannot serve as proof to the halakha concerning an animal sin offering, whose blood is to be placed on the four corners of the altar.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ ״וְכִפֶּר״ (מִפְּנֵי הַדִּין); ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא אַחַת.
Since both of the above inferences are reasonable, neither can serve as the source of the halakha. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement,” “And the priest shall make atonement,” “And the priest shall make atonement,” for a total of three times. The verses are interpreted as follows: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed only three placements. Subsequently: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed only two placements, and then: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed only one placement. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel’s opinion.
וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אָמַר רָבָא: בַּר אַדָּא מָרִי אַסְבְּרַהּ לִי – אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר… וְנִסְלַח״ – זוֹ הִיא כַּפָּרָה זוֹ הִיא סְלִיחָה.
The Gemara challenges: But each of these verses is necessary for itself, to teach that atonement is achieved for each of the sins through its respective sin offering. Rava said: Bar Adda Mari explained this matter to me: The verse states with regard to each of these sin offerings: “And the priest shall make atonement…and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 4:26, 31, 35). This is atonement and this is forgiveness; they are one and the same. Since it would have sufficed to say: “And he shall be forgiven,” the superfluous mentions of the phrase: “And the priest shall make atonement,” serve to teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he has not performed all the placements.
אֵימָא ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שָׁלֹשׁ לְמַעְלָה וְאַחַת לְמַטָּה, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא שְׁתַּיִם לְמַטָּה וּשְׁתַּיִם לְמַעְלָה, ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן לְמַעְלָה אֶלָּא לְמַטָּה!
The Gemara asks: But even if these phrases are superfluous, do they necessarily indicate that a priest who omitted placements has nevertheless facilitated atonement? Why not say that these phrases serve to teach that if the priest placed all the placements he facilitated atonement even if the placements were placed in the wrong place? And expound the verses as follows: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above, on the corners of the altar, and one below, on the lower portion of the altar; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even if he did not place the blood above at all, but only below.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר יִצְחָק: אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ תּוֹרַת אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת. וְאִי רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר, לִיבַּטְלוּן!
Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak says: If so, that the priest facilitates atonement even if he placed all the placements below, you have abolished the requirement of four corners that is stated with regard to the sin offering (see, e.g., Leviticus 4:34), as the four corners are on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara is puzzled by Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak’s claim: But if the Merciful One states that this is so, let this requirement be abolished.
אָמַר רָבָא: אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁצָּרִיךְ שָׁלֹשׁ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ קְרָנוֹת.
As Rav Adda bar Yitzḥak’s claim was rejected, Rava said there is a different reason why the previous claim cannot be accepted: What is the item that requires three repetitions of “and the priest shall make atonement,” i.e., to what are these verses referring? You must say that these are the corners of the altar. The Torah must teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he did not place the blood on three of the four corners. But in order for the verses to teach that all four placements can be placed below, the phrase “and the priest shall make atonement” would have to be written four times.
אֵימָא: ״וְכִפֶּר״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן אֶלָּא אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשָׁלֹשׁ לְמַטָּה!
The Gemara asks further: Even so, it is possible to interpret the three repetitions of the phrase “and the priest shall make atonement” as referring to the location of the placements, without abolishing the requirement of corners, as one can say: “And the priest shall make atonement,” even though he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above and one below; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even though he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; “And the priest shall make atonement,” even though he placed the blood with only one placement above and three below.
לֹא מָצִינוּ דָּמִים שֶׁחֶצְיָין לְמַעְלָה וְחֶצְיָין לְמַטָּה. וְלָא?! וְהָתְנַן: הִזָּה מִמֶּנּוּ אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה!
The Gemara answers: This entire line of inquiry can be rejected, as we do not find a case involving blood, half of which is placed above the red line and half of which is placed below it. One either places all the blood on the lower half of the altar, as in the case of most offerings, or all of it on the upper half of the altar, as in the case of sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 53b): The High Priest took the blood of the bull into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled from the blood one time upward and then seven times downward? Apparently, part of the blood of an offering can be sprinkled upward, toward the upper part of the Ark Cover, and part can be placed downward, toward the lower part of the Ark Cover.
כְּמַצְלִיף. מַאי כְּמַצְלִיף? מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה: כִּמְנַגְּדָנָא.
The Gemara rejects this: That is not a case where half the blood is sprinkled upward and half is sprinkled downward. Instead, that sprinkling was like a matzlif. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of like a matzlif? Rav Yehuda demonstrated with his hand; it means like one who whips. One who whips another does not strike repeatedly in one place but directs one lash beneath the other.
הִזָּה עַל טׇהֳרוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים.
The Gemara further asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Yoma 58b) about the Yom Kippur service: After the High Priest sprinkled blood on the four corners of the incense altar, he sprinkled blood seven times on tohoro of the altar.
מַאי, לָאו אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ – כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״טְהַר טִיהֲרָא דְּיוֹמָא״? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא, אַגִּילּוּיֵיהּ; דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״.
What, is it not referring to the middle of the side of the altar, as people say: Clear noon [tihara], that is the middle of the day? Accordingly, the root tet, heh, reish denotes the middle; in the one case, the middle of the day, and in the other case, halfway up the altar. Now, since the blood was sprinkled on the altar seven times, inevitably some of the blood landed above the midpoint and some of it landed below the midpoint. Rava bar Sheila said: No, that is not the meaning of tohoro. Rather, tohoro means on the revealed part, i.e., the top, of the altar, as it is written: “Like the very clear [latohar] sky” (Exodus 24:10). Tohoro is referring to the top of the altar when it has been revealed, after the ashes of the incense are cleared and the pure gold is visible.
וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם! שִׁירַיִם לָא מְעַכְּבִי.
The Gemara asks again: Is there not a case where some of the blood is presented above the red line and some of it is presented below? But there is the remainder of the blood, which is poured on the base of the altar even in the case of a sin offering, the main blood of which is placed on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara answers: The pouring of the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not indispensable for atonement. Blood that is indispensable for atonement is in no instance presented half above the red line and half below it.
וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם הַפְּנִימִים, דְּאִיכָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְעַכְּבִי! בְּחַד מָקוֹם קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara continues this line of questioning: But there is the remainder of the blood of the inner sin offerings, the main blood of which is sprinkled on the inner altar. The remainder of the blood of these offerings is poured on the base of the external altar, and there is one who says that this pouring of the blood is indispensable for atonement. The Gemara explains: When we said that there is no blood, half of which is presented above and half below, we said this with regard to one place, i.e., the same altar. The blood of inner sin offerings is sprinkled on the inner altar, while the remainder of that blood is poured on the base of the external altar. There is no case of blood, half of which is presented above and half of which is presented below on the same altar.
תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת, וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתִּירוֹת וּמְפַגְּלוֹת.
§ The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, in the case of a sin offering two placements facilitate atonement, while with regard to other offerings a single placement is sufficient. Beit Hillel disagree and say that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices after the fact. With regard to this issue, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Beit Shammai say that two placements in the case of a sin offering, and one placement in the case of other offerings, they render the offering permitted for eating since these actions facilitate atonement after the fact, despite the fact that blood was not placed on all four corners of the altar. And similarly they render the offering piggul. That is to say, if the priest placed two placements of the blood of a sin offering or one placement of the blood of any another offering, intending to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul.
בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתֶּרֶת וּמְפַגֶּלֶת.
Beit Hillel say: One placement in the case of a sin offering, and likewise one placement in the case of all the other offerings, if done with proper intent, renders the offering permitted for eating and, if done with improper intent, renders the offering piggul.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל!
Rav Oshaya objects to this: If so, let this halakha be taught in the fourth chapter of tractate Eduyyot alongside the other rare cases of Beit Shammai’s leniencies and Beit Hillel’s stringencies. According to Beit Hillel, a sin offering is piggul even if the priest intended to partake of it beyond its designated time even while performing a single placement, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that the offering is piggul only if he had this improper intent during two placements.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כִּי אִיתְּשִׁיל – לְהֶתֵּירָא אִיתְּשִׁיל; דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.
Rava said to Rav Oshaya: When this question was initially asked, and the Sages stated their opinions concerning the matter, it was asked with regard to the permission to partake of the sin offering. In other words, the dispute arose as a result of an inquiry into the other relevant halakha, i.e., whether the priests may partake of a sin offering, the blood of which was placed only one time. In this case it is Beit Shammai who are more stringent, as they permit the meat of a sin offering only after two placements have been placed. For this reason, this case was not listed among the other leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאוֹת – אֵינָן בָּאוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Despite the fact that, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, the last three placements in the case of a sin offering are not indispensable to the atonement, they may not be performed at night, because the blood is invalidated at sunset. And these three placements may be performed after the death of the owner. If the owner of the offering died before any of the blood was placed on the altar, the blood may not be placed, and the offering is burned as a disqualified offering. But if he died after one placement, the priest may perform the other three placements, as he has already facilitated atonement by means of the first placement. And as it is a mitzva to perform these three placements on the altar, one who offers this blood up on an altar outside the Temple is liable to receive karet, the punishment received by one who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יֵשׁ מֵהֶן כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּסוֹפוֹ;
Rav Pappa says: There are some respects in which the blood of the last three placements of a sin offering is treated like the blood presented at the outset, i.e., like the blood of the first placement, and there are some respects in which the blood of the last three placements is treated like the blood presented at the end, i.e., like the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.
חוּץ, וְלַיְלָה, זָרוּת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, קֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, כִּיבּוּס, וְשִׁירַיִם – כִּתְחִלָּתָן;
Rav Pappa elaborates: With regard to liability for presenting blood outside the Temple, and concerning the prohibition against presenting blood at night, and with regard to the disqualification of a non-priest from presenting blood and his liability for death at the hand of Heaven if he presents blood in the Temple, and with regard to the requirement that the blood that is to be presented must first be placed in a service vessel, and that the blood must be placed on the corner of the altar, and that the placement must be performed with the priest’s finger, and concerning the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, and finally with regard to the requirement of pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, the last three placements are treated like blood presented at the outset, i.e., like the first placement.
וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לָא שָׁרְיָא, וְלָא מְפַגְּלָא, וְלָא עָיְילָא לְגַוַּאי – כְּסוֹפָן.
But these last three placements may be performed after the death of the owner; and they do not render the offering permitted for eating, as that was already achieved by means of the first placement; nor do they render the offering piggul if during these placements the priest intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time; and similarly, they are not governed by the halakha that if the blood enters inside the Sanctuary the sin offering is disqualified. With regard to all these matters the blood of the last three placements is treated like the blood presented at the end, i.e., like the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: נִיתַּז מִן הַצַּוָּאר עַל הַבֶּגֶד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִן הַקֶּרֶן וּמִן הַיְסוֹד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לְקֶרֶן – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
With regard to the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, Rav Pappa said: From where do I say that this halakha applies even to the blood of the last three placements? It is as we learned in a mishna (93a): If the blood of a sin offering sprayed directly from the neck of the animal onto a garment, that garment does not require laundering, as the blood had never been received in a vessel. Likewise, if the blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar after having been placed there, or from the base of the altar after the remainder was poured there, the garment does not require laundering. It may be inferred from here that blood that sprayed from the corner of the altar does not require laundering. But blood that is fit to be placed on the corner, as it has not yet been placed, requires laundering, and the blood of the last three placements is indeed fit to be placed on the corner of the altar.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִן הַיְסוֹד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס – הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לַיְסוֹד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס?! ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ כְּתִיב – פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁכְּבָר הוּזָּה!
The Gemara rejects this proof: But according to your reasoning, one can claim in the same manner that it is only blood that sprayed from the base of the altar that does not require laundering; but blood that is fit for the base of the altar, i.e., what remains of the blood after it has been placed on the corners, requires laundering. This is difficult, as it is written: “And when there will be sprinkled [yizze] of its blood upon any garment” (Leviticus 6:20). The future form of the word yizze serves to exclude this blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar, as it has already been sprinkled.
הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה; דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabbi Neḥemya says: With regard to the remainder of the blood of an offering, which was to be poured at the base of the altar, if one presented it outside the Temple, he is liable. Since Rabbi Neḥemya treats the remainder of the blood as blood with regard to liability for a service performed outside the Temple, he also treats the remainder of the blood of a sin offering as blood with regard to laundering. Accordingly, Rav Pappa’s inference from the previously cited mishna is valid only according to Rabbi Neḥemya, but not according to the majority opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.
אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – לְעִנְיַן הַעֲלָאָה, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵי אַאֵיבָרִים וּפְדָרִים; לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס – מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?! אִין;
The Gemara challenges the proof even according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya: Say that you heard that Rabbi Neḥemya ruled in this manner with regard to the offering up of the remainder of the blood outside the Temple, just as is the case with regard to limbs and fats. Even though the offering of the limbs and fats is not indispensable for atonement, one who offers them outside the Temple is liable. But did you also hear him say this with regard to laundering, that one must launder a garment sprayed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering? The Gemara answers: Yes, we also heard Rabbi Neḥemya rule in this manner with regard to laundering.
