Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 21, 2018 | 讝壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 38

What is the source for Beit Hillel regarding his argument with Beit Shamai about a sin offering – if blood was only sprinkled on one corner of the altar, was atonement effected? Two different sources are brought. Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Papa list the status of the other 3 sprinklings聽(after atonement is effected) regarding various halachot – in some ways they are like the first and in other ways not.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讛转诐 讞讚 拽专讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇住讻讻讛 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讙专注转讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讗讜拽讬诪转讛 讗讟驻讞

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜讟诪讗讛 砖讘注讬诐 砖讘注讬诐 讗讛谞讬 拽专讗 讜讗讛谞讬 诪住讜专转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜转专讬谉 讘注讬讗 诇诪讬转讘

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: 鈥淏ut if she bear a female child, then she shall be impure two weeks [shevu鈥檃yim], as in her menstruation鈥 (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?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻谞讚转讛

The Gemara answers: There it is different, and the consonantal text is disregarded entirely, as it is written: 鈥淎s in her menstruation,鈥 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.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉

搂 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to the goat brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to the sheep brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:35). The repetition of this term is due to a logical inference.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专

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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

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.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讞讜抓 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转

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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 (诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉) 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Since both of the above inferences are reasonable, neither can serve as the source of the halakha. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 for a total of three times. The verses are interpreted as follows: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed only three placements. Subsequently: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed only two placements, and then: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed only one placement. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讚讗 诪专讬 讗住讘专讛 诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 讜谞住诇讞 讝讜 讛讬讗 讻驻专讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 住诇讬讞讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement鈥nd he shall be forgiven鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall be forgiven,鈥 the superfluous mentions of the phrase: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 serve to teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he has not performed all the placements.

讗讬诪讗 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜砖转讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讟讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 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; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he did not place the blood above at all, but only below.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诐 讻谉 讘讬讟诇转 转讜专转 讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讜讗讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讘讟诇讜谉

Rav Adda bar Yitz岣k 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 Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But if the Merciful One states that this is so, let this requirement be abolished.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖爪专讬讱 砖诇砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 拽专谞讜转

As Rav Adda bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 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 鈥渁nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 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 鈥渁nd the priest shall make atonement鈥 would have to be written four times.

讗讬诪讗 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖诇砖 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks further: Even so, it is possible to interpret the three repetitions of the phrase 鈥渁nd the priest shall make atonement鈥 as referring to the location of the placements, without abolishing the requirement of corners, as one can say: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above and one below; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he placed the blood with only one placement above and three below.

诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讚诪讬诐 砖讞爪讬讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讞爪讬讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛讝讛 诪诪谞讜 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛

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鈥檛 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.

讻诪爪诇讬祝 诪讗讬 讻诪爪诇讬祝 诪讞讜讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诪谞讙讚谞讗

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.

讛讝讛 注诇 讟讛专讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐

The Gemara further asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn鈥檛 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚诪讝讘讞 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讟讛专 讟讬讛专讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 诇讗 讗讙讬诇讜讬讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻注爪诐 讛砖诪讬诐 诇讟讛专

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: 鈥淟ike the very clear [latohar] sky鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬诐 砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注讻讘讬 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讞讟讗转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 诪转讬专讜转

搂 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鈥檃kov 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.

讜诪驻讙诇讜转 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 砖讘讞讟讗转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 诪转专转 讜诪驻讙诇转

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. Beit Hillel say: One placement in the case 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

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鈥檚 leniencies and Beit Hillel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻讬 讗讬转砖讬诇 诇讛转讬专讗 讗讬转砖讬诇 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讘讗讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讘讗讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讻转讞诇转讜 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 讻住讜驻讜

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.

讞讜抓 讜诇讬诇讛 讝专讜转 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 拽专谉 讜讗爪讘注 讻讬讘讜住 讜砖讬专讬诐 讻转讞诇转谉

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鈥檚 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.

讜讘讗讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 砖专讬讗 讜诇讗 诪驻讙诇讗 讜诇讗 注讬讬诇讗 诇讙讜讗讬 讻住讜驻谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪谉 讛拽专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讛讗 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇拽专谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

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.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讛讗 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗砖专 讬讝讛 讻转讬讘 驻专讟 诇讝讛 砖讻讘专 讛讜讝讛

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: 鈥淎nd when there will be sprinkled [yizze] of its blood upon any garment鈥 (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.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabbi Ne岣mya 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 Ne岣mya 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鈥檚 inference from the previously cited mishna is valid only according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, but not according to the majority opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇注谞讬谉 讛注诇讗讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讬 讗讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

The Gemara challenges the proof even according to the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya: Say that you heard that Rabbi Ne岣mya 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 Ne岣mya rule in this manner with regard to laundering.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 38

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 38

讛转诐 讞讚 拽专讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讜讞讚 诇住讻讻讛 讗转讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讙专注转讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜讗讜拽讬诪转讛 讗讟驻讞

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.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜讟诪讗讛 砖讘注讬诐 砖讘注讬诐 讗讛谞讬 拽专讗 讜讗讛谞讬 诪住讜专转 讗专讘注讬诐 讜转专讬谉 讘注讬讗 诇诪讬转讘

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: 鈥淏ut if she bear a female child, then she shall be impure two weeks [shevu鈥檃yim], as in her menstruation鈥 (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?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻谞讚转讛

The Gemara answers: There it is different, and the consonantal text is disregarded entirely, as it is written: 鈥淎s in her menstruation,鈥 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.

讜转谞讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉

搂 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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:26), and with regard to the goat brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:31), and with regard to the sheep brought as a sin offering by an ordinary person: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement for him鈥 (Leviticus 4:35). The repetition of this term is due to a logical inference.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专

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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讞讜抓 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪谉 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

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.

谞专讗讛 诇诪讬 讚讜诪讛 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚谞讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讜讗诇 讬讜讻讬讞 讞讜抓 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转

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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 讜讻驻专 (诪驻谞讬 讛讚讬谉) 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转

Since both of the above inferences are reasonable, neither can serve as the source of the halakha. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 for a total of three times. The verses are interpreted as follows: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed only three placements. Subsequently: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed only two placements, and then: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed only one placement. This interpretation is the source of Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion.

讜讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讗讚讗 诪专讬 讗住讘专讛 诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻驻专 讜谞住诇讞 讝讜 讛讬讗 讻驻专讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 住诇讬讞讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement鈥nd he shall be forgiven鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd he shall be forgiven,鈥 the superfluous mentions of the phrase: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 serve to teach that the priest facilitates atonement even if he has not performed all the placements.

讗讬诪讗 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖诇砖 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 砖转讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讜砖转讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讟讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 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; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even if he did not place the blood above at all, but only below.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诐 讻谉 讘讬讟诇转 转讜专转 讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讜讗讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讘讟诇讜谉

Rav Adda bar Yitz岣k 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 Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But if the Merciful One states that this is so, let this requirement be abolished.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖爪专讬讱 砖诇砖 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讗诇讜 拽专谞讜转

As Rav Adda bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 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 鈥渁nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 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 鈥渁nd the priest shall make atonement鈥 would have to be written four times.

讗讬诪讗 讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖诇砖 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara asks further: Even so, it is possible to interpret the three repetitions of the phrase 鈥渁nd the priest shall make atonement鈥 as referring to the location of the placements, without abolishing the requirement of corners, as one can say: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he placed the blood on the altar with only three placements above and one below; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he placed the blood with only two placements above and two below; 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement,鈥 even though he placed the blood with only one placement above and three below.

诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 讚诪讬诐 砖讞爪讬讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讞爪讬讬谉 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 讛讝讛 诪诪谞讜 讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 讜砖讘注 诇诪讟讛

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鈥檛 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.

讻诪爪诇讬祝 诪讗讬 讻诪爪诇讬祝 诪讞讜讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讻诪谞讙讚谞讗

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.

讛讝讛 注诇 讟讛专讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 砖讘注 驻注诪讬诐

The Gemara further asks: And is there really no case of that sort? But didn鈥檛 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻诇讙讬讛 讚诪讝讘讞 讻讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讟讛专 讟讬讛专讗 讚讬讜诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 诇讗 讗讙讬诇讜讬讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻注爪诐 讛砖诪讬诐 诇讟讛专

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: 鈥淟ike the very clear [latohar] sky鈥 (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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬诐 砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注讻讘讬 讘讞讚 诪拽讜诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

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.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讞讟讗转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 诪转讬专讜转

搂 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鈥檃kov 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.

讜诪驻讙诇讜转 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 砖讘讞讟讗转 讜讗讞转 砖讘讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 诪转专转 讜诪驻讙诇转

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. Beit Hillel say: One placement in the case 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 拽讜诇讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜讞讜诪专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

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鈥檚 leniencies and Beit Hillel鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讻讬 讗讬转砖讬诇 诇讛转讬专讗 讗讬转砖讬诇 讚讛讜讜 诇讛讜 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讞讜诪专讗

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖诇砖 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讞讟讗讜转 讗讬谞谉 讘讗讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讘讗讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讬砖 诪讛谉 讻转讞诇转讜 讜讬砖 诪讛谉 讻住讜驻讜

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.

讞讜抓 讜诇讬诇讛 讝专讜转 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 拽专谉 讜讗爪讘注 讻讬讘讜住 讜砖讬专讬诐 讻转讞诇转谉

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鈥檚 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.

讜讘讗讜转 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 砖专讬讗 讜诇讗 诪驻讙诇讗 讜诇讗 注讬讬诇讗 诇讙讜讗讬 讻住讜驻谉

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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪谞讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛 讚转谞谉 谞讬转讝 诪谉 讛爪讜讗专 注诇 讛讘讙讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪谉 讛拽专谉 讜诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讛讗 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇拽专谉 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

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.

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 讗讬谞讜 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讛讗 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住 讗砖专 讬讝讛 讻转讬讘 驻专讟 诇讝讛 砖讻讘专 讛讜讝讛

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: 鈥淎nd when there will be sprinkled [yizze] of its blood upon any garment鈥 (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.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabbi Ne岣mya 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 Ne岣mya 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鈥檚 inference from the previously cited mishna is valid only according to Rabbi Ne岣mya, but not according to the majority opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

讗讬诪专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇注谞讬谉 讛注诇讗讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讬 讗讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 诇注谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

The Gemara challenges the proof even according to the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya: Say that you heard that Rabbi Ne岣mya 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 Ne岣mya rule in this manner with regard to laundering.

Scroll To Top