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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 22, 2018 | 讞壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 39

Rav Papa brings a proof from an inference from a聽mishna that if blood got on one’s clothing from the remaining聽3 sprinklings聽(before all 3 were sprinkled), one would need to wash one’s clothing (law of kibus, laundering). The proof聽is questioned but ultimately resolved. A braita聽is brought explaining the source for the halacha in the mishna聽that all the sprinklings for the sin offerings that are done in the inner sanctuary are necessary.


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

讜讛转谞讬讗 讚诪讬诐 讛讟注讜谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 讜诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to blood that requires the base of the altar, presumably a reference to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which must be poured on the base of the altar, it requires laundering; and improper intent is effective with regard to it, i.e., if the priest poured such blood with the intent to partake of the sacrificial meat beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul; and one who offers it up outside the Temple is liable.

讜讚诪讬诐 讛谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 讜讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

And conversely, with regard to blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain that passed through the Temple and emptied into the Kidron River, which is blood that has been become disqualified, it does not require laundering, and improper intent is not effective with regard to it, and one who offers it up outside the Temple is exempt.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讜拽讗诪专 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

The Gemara inquires: About whom did you learn that he said that one who offers up the remainder of the blood outside the Temple is liable? It is Rabbi Ne岣mya who says this, and he states in this baraita that a garment that was sprayed with such blood requires laundering.

讜诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬爪讗讜 砖讬专讬诐 讜讛拽讟专转 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛讻驻专讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉

The Gemara asks: And is improper intent effective with regard to blood that must be poured on the base of the altar? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita discussing the intent that renders an offering piggul: The possibility of piggul applies only with regard to a service that is indispensable for atonement. This serves to exclude pouring the remainder of the blood on the altar and burning the sacrificial portions on the altar, actions that are not indispensable for atonement, concerning which the halakha is that improper intent is not effective with regard to them.

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖诇砖 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讞讟讗转

Rather, when that baraita is taught, stating that blood that requires the base requires laundering, it is not referring to the remainder of the blood after the placements have been completed. Instead, it is referring to the blood that is to be used for the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注讜谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 诇拽专谉 讗讝诇讬 讗讬诪讗 谞讬讟注谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 讜诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讛讗诪专转 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

The Gemara asks: If so, is it correct to describe this blood as requiring the base of the altar? After all, this blood goes to the corner of the altar, not the base. The Gemara answers: Say that this means: Blood that becomes required for the base, i.e., blood that in the end, after the placements are completed, will be poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara further asks: But is improper intent effective with regard to the blood of the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering? Didn鈥檛 you say that this blood does not render the offering permitted for eating, nor does it render the offering piggul, and it is 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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讚诪讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐

The Gemara explains: Rather, when that baraita is taught, stating that blood requiring the base requires laundering, and improper intent is effective with regard to it, and one who presents of it outside the Temple is liable, it is indeed referring to the remainder of the blood after the placements have been completed. It is stated not with regard to the remainder of the blood of a standard sin offering, but with regard to the remainder of the blood of inner sin offerings, which are brought on the inner altar located inside the Sanctuary.

讗讘诇 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讚诪讬诐 讛谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讗诪讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, with regard to the remainder of the blood of external sin offerings that are brought on the external altar, what is the halakha? Is one who presents them outside the Temple exempt? If so, rather than teaching the halakha of disqualified blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain, let the baraita distinguish and teach the halakha within the case of the remainder of the blood itself, in the following manner: In what case is this statement said? In a case of the blood of sin offerings brought on the inner altar. But in the case of the blood of sin offerings brought on the external altar, one who offers up such an offering outside the Temple is exempt.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 转诇转讗 驻讟讜专讬 诇讘讛讚讬 转诇转讗 讞讬讜讘讬

The Gemara answers: The baraita could not have made such a distinction, for in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who says: With regard to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering brought on the external altar, in a case where one presented it outside the Temple, he is liable. And therefore, were the tanna to contrast the halakha of the blood of sin offerings brought on the external altar with that of the blood of sin offerings brought on the inner altar, he would not have been able to teach three rulings of exemptions corresponding to three rulings of liabilities, as Rabbi Ne岣mya maintains that even with regard to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering brought on the external altar, if one presents it outside the Temple he is liable. Therefore, the tanna preferred to compare the halakhot of the remainder of the blood of inner sin offerings to the disqualified blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain, so that he could list three lenient rulings alongside three stringent ones.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪谉 讛拽专谉 诪诪砖 诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Rav Pappa, that a garment sprayed by blood from the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering requires laundering, and to his proof from the mishna that states that if the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto a garment from the corner of the altar or from the base of the altar, the garment does not require laundering. Ravina says, in answer to the objection raised against Rav Pappa above, that according to Rav Pappa the mishna (93a) should be understood as follows: The term: From the corner, means from the corner, literally, after the blood was placed there, and therefore Rav Pappa could infer from this that blood that is fit to be placed on the corner, including the blood to be used for the last three sprinklings, requires laundering. But the term: From the base of the altar, does not mean from the base, literally. Rather, it means: From blood that is fit for the base of the altar, i.e., from the remainder of the blood, which is to be poured on the base.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讙讝讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讛砖转讗 专讗讜讬 诇拽专谉 讗诪专转 诇讗 专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛拽专谉 诪谉 讛拽专谉 诪诪砖 诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚

Rav Ta岣ifa bar Gazza said to Ravina: One can say a different explanation, that both this and that, i.e., the term: From the corner, and the term: From the base, are referring to blood that is fit for the corner or the base, in which case the mishna teaches that a garment sprayed by the blood that was to be used for the last three placements of a sin offering does not require laundering, contrary to the opinion of Rav Pappa. Ravina replied: What is this claim? Now that you say that blood which is fit for the corner does not require laundering, is it necessary to state that the same applies to blood that is merely fit for the base of the altar? That ruling would be unnecessary. Rather, it must be that the term: From the corner, means from the corner, literally, i.e., that the blood has already been placed there, whereas the term: From the base, means from blood that is fit for the base, i.e., from the remainder of the blood, which is to be poured on the base.

讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注砖讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诪讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讜讚

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the inner altar, which are the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goat for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, if the priest omitted even one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah first discusses the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and afterward the bull for an unwitting communal sin, concerning which it states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20). It may be asked: This phrase: 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did,鈥 what does this come to teach? All the details stated with regard to the first bull, i.e., that of the anointed priest, seem to be stated explicitly with regard to the second bull as well.

诇讻驻讜诇 讘讛讝讗转讜 讜诇诪讚 砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪转谉 砖讘注 砖诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪转谉 讗专讘注 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讬注砖讛

Rather, the verse comes to repeat the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood, as though it were written twice with regard to the same bull. This repetition of the halakha indicates that the sprinkling is indispensable, thereby teaching that if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing. I have a derivation only with regard to the seven placements on the Curtain separating between the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, that they are indispensable, as these seven are indispensable in all cases, as the Gemara will explain (40a). From where is it derived that the same applies to the four placements on the inner altar? The verse states: 鈥淪o shall he do鈥 (Leviticus 4:20).

诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The baraita continues: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:20); this alludes to a different bull whose service is similar, namely the bull of Yom Kippur.

讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讛讞讟讗转 讗诇讜 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 砖注讬专讬 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讜

鈥淎s he did with the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:20); this is a reference to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, teaching that all of the sprinklings of the blood of this bull are also indispensable. 鈥淎 sin offering鈥; these are the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, teaching that they are offered in the same manner as the bull for an unwitting communal sin, their blood being sprinkled in the Sanctuary and their flesh burned. One might have thought that I should include also the goats of the Festivals and the goats sacrificed on the New Moons, which are communal offerings as well, i.e., that their service should be performed inside the Sanctuary like that of the bull for an unwitting communal sin. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o shall he do with this鈥 (Leviticus 4:20), which indicates that this service is performed only with this animal and not with the goats of the Festivals or the goats of the New Moons.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 注讘讬专转 诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 注讘讬专转 诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include these goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship and to exclude those goats sacrificed on the Festivals and the New Moons? The Gemara answers: After noting that the verse included some offerings and excluded others, one can say: I include these goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, as they atone for the known transgression of a mitzva, i.e., idol worship, and therefore they are similar to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought for an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin with regard to a specific mitzva. And I exclude those goats sacrificed on the Festivals and the New Moons, as they do not atone for the known transgression of a mitzva, but rather they atone for the unwitting defilement of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 住诪讱 讜谞住诇讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 砖讬专讬诐

The baraita resumes its interpretation of the verse. 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement鈥; this teaches that atonement is achieved even if the Elders did not place their hands on the head of the bull as they are commanded to do (see Leviticus 4:15). 鈥淎nd they shall be forgiven鈥; this teaches that atonement is achieved even if the priest did not place the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, as is required (see Leviticus 4:7).

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇驻住讜诇 讘讛讝讗讜转 讜诇讛讻砖讬专 讘住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara again asks: And as the verse does not specify which aspects of the service are included and which are excluded, what did you see to disqualify the offering in the case of the seven sprinklings; how did you derive that the phrase 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did鈥 teaches that the seven sprinklings are indispensable? And what did you see to render the offering fit in the absence of placing hands on the head of the offering and pouring out the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, based on the words 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement鈥nd they shall be forgiven鈥?

讗诪专转 驻讜住诇 讘讛讝讗讜转 砖诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜诪讻砖讬专 讗谞讬 讘住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara answers: You should say the following logical argument: I disqualify the offering in the absence of the seven sprinklings, as these seven sprinklings are indispensable in all cases, as will be explained (40a), and I render the offering fit in the absence of placing hands on the head of the offering and in the absence of the pouring of the remainder of the blood onto the base of the altar, as these are not indispensable in all cases, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they are not indispensable here either.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 39

讜讛转谞讬讗 讚诪讬诐 讛讟注讜谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 讜诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

And this is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to blood that requires the base of the altar, presumably a reference to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which must be poured on the base of the altar, it requires laundering; and improper intent is effective with regard to it, i.e., if the priest poured such blood with the intent to partake of the sacrificial meat beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul; and one who offers it up outside the Temple is liable.

讜讚诪讬诐 讛谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讗诪讛 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讻讬讘讜住 讜讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

And conversely, with regard to blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain that passed through the Temple and emptied into the Kidron River, which is blood that has been become disqualified, it does not require laundering, and improper intent is not effective with regard to it, and one who offers it up outside the Temple is exempt.

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讜拽讗诪专 讟注讜谉 讻讬讘讜住

The Gemara inquires: About whom did you learn that he said that one who offers up the remainder of the blood outside the Temple is liable? It is Rabbi Ne岣mya who says this, and he states in this baraita that a garment that was sprayed with such blood requires laundering.

讜诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬爪讗讜 砖讬专讬诐 讜讛拽讟专转 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗转 讛讻驻专讛 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉

The Gemara asks: And is improper intent effective with regard to blood that must be poured on the base of the altar? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita discussing the intent that renders an offering piggul: The possibility of piggul applies only with regard to a service that is indispensable for atonement. This serves to exclude pouring the remainder of the blood on the altar and burning the sacrificial portions on the altar, actions that are not indispensable for atonement, concerning which the halakha is that improper intent is not effective with regard to them.

讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖诇砖 诪转谞讜转 砖讘讞讟讗转

Rather, when that baraita is taught, stating that blood that requires the base requires laundering, it is not referring to the remainder of the blood after the placements have been completed. Instead, it is referring to the blood that is to be used for the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讟注讜谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 诇拽专谉 讗讝诇讬 讗讬诪讗 谞讬讟注谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 讜诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讘讛谉 讛讗诪专转 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

The Gemara asks: If so, is it correct to describe this blood as requiring the base of the altar? After all, this blood goes to the corner of the altar, not the base. The Gemara answers: Say that this means: Blood that becomes required for the base, i.e., blood that in the end, after the placements are completed, will be poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara further asks: But is improper intent effective with regard to the blood of the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering? Didn鈥檛 you say that this blood does not render the offering permitted for eating, nor does it render the offering piggul, and it is 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.

讗诇讗 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讚诪讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐

The Gemara explains: Rather, when that baraita is taught, stating that blood requiring the base requires laundering, and improper intent is effective with regard to it, and one who presents of it outside the Temple is liable, it is indeed referring to the remainder of the blood after the placements have been completed. It is stated not with regard to the remainder of the blood of a standard sin offering, but with regard to the remainder of the blood of inner sin offerings, which are brought on the inner altar located inside the Sanctuary.

讗讘诇 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗讚转谞讬 讚诪讬诐 讛谞砖驻讻讬谉 诇讗诪讛 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讘讚诪讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, with regard to the remainder of the blood of external sin offerings that are brought on the external altar, what is the halakha? Is one who presents them outside the Temple exempt? If so, rather than teaching the halakha of disqualified blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain, let the baraita distinguish and teach the halakha within the case of the remainder of the blood itself, in the following manner: In what case is this statement said? In a case of the blood of sin offerings brought on the inner altar. But in the case of the blood of sin offerings brought on the external altar, one who offers up such an offering outside the Temple is exempt.

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜诇讗 诪转谞讬 诇讬讛 转诇转讗 驻讟讜专讬 诇讘讛讚讬 转诇转讗 讞讬讜讘讬

The Gemara answers: The baraita could not have made such a distinction, for in accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ne岣mya, who says: With regard to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering brought on the external altar, in a case where one presented it outside the Temple, he is liable. And therefore, were the tanna to contrast the halakha of the blood of sin offerings brought on the external altar with that of the blood of sin offerings brought on the inner altar, he would not have been able to teach three rulings of exemptions corresponding to three rulings of liabilities, as Rabbi Ne岣mya maintains that even with regard to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering brought on the external altar, if one presents it outside the Temple he is liable. Therefore, the tanna preferred to compare the halakhot of the remainder of the blood of inner sin offerings to the disqualified blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain, so that he could list three lenient rulings alongside three stringent ones.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诪谉 讛拽专谉 诪诪砖 诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Rav Pappa, that a garment sprayed by blood from the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering requires laundering, and to his proof from the mishna that states that if the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto a garment from the corner of the altar or from the base of the altar, the garment does not require laundering. Ravina says, in answer to the objection raised against Rav Pappa above, that according to Rav Pappa the mishna (93a) should be understood as follows: The term: From the corner, means from the corner, literally, after the blood was placed there, and therefore Rav Pappa could infer from this that blood that is fit to be placed on the corner, including the blood to be used for the last three sprinklings, requires laundering. But the term: From the base of the altar, does not mean from the base, literally. Rather, it means: From blood that is fit for the base of the altar, i.e., from the remainder of the blood, which is to be poured on the base.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 转讞诇讬驻讗 讘专 讙讝讗 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 专讗讜讬 讛讜讗 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讛砖转讗 专讗讜讬 诇拽专谉 讗诪专转 诇讗 专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛拽专谉 诪谉 讛拽专谉 诪诪砖 诪谉 讛讬住讜讚 诪谉 讛专讗讜讬 诇讬住讜讚

Rav Ta岣ifa bar Gazza said to Ravina: One can say a different explanation, that both this and that, i.e., the term: From the corner, and the term: From the base, are referring to blood that is fit for the corner or the base, in which case the mishna teaches that a garment sprayed by the blood that was to be used for the last three placements of a sin offering does not require laundering, contrary to the opinion of Rav Pappa. Ravina replied: What is this claim? Now that you say that blood which is fit for the corner does not require laundering, is it necessary to state that the same applies to blood that is merely fit for the base of the altar? That ruling would be unnecessary. Rather, it must be that the term: From the corner, means from the corner, literally, i.e., that the blood has already been placed there, whereas the term: From the base, means from blood that is fit for the base, i.e., from the remainder of the blood, which is to be poured on the base.

讻诇 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注砖讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诪讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讜讚

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the inner altar, which are the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goat for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, if the priest omitted even one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah first discusses the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and afterward the bull for an unwitting communal sin, concerning which it states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20). It may be asked: This phrase: 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did,鈥 what does this come to teach? All the details stated with regard to the first bull, i.e., that of the anointed priest, seem to be stated explicitly with regard to the second bull as well.

诇讻驻讜诇 讘讛讝讗转讜 讜诇诪讚 砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪转谉 砖讘注 砖诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪转谉 讗专讘注 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻谉 讬注砖讛

Rather, the verse comes to repeat the halakha of the sprinkling of the blood, as though it were written twice with regard to the same bull. This repetition of the halakha indicates that the sprinkling is indispensable, thereby teaching that if the priest omitted one of the placements he has done nothing. I have a derivation only with regard to the seven placements on the Curtain separating between the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, that they are indispensable, as these seven are indispensable in all cases, as the Gemara will explain (40a). From where is it derived that the same applies to the four placements on the inner altar? The verse states: 鈥淪o shall he do鈥 (Leviticus 4:20).

诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The baraita continues: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:20); this alludes to a different bull whose service is similar, namely the bull of Yom Kippur.

讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讛讞讟讗转 讗诇讜 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 砖注讬专讬 讛专讙诇讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讜

鈥淎s he did with the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:20); this is a reference to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, teaching that all of the sprinklings of the blood of this bull are also indispensable. 鈥淎 sin offering鈥; these are the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, teaching that they are offered in the same manner as the bull for an unwitting communal sin, their blood being sprinkled in the Sanctuary and their flesh burned. One might have thought that I should include also the goats of the Festivals and the goats sacrificed on the New Moons, which are communal offerings as well, i.e., that their service should be performed inside the Sanctuary like that of the bull for an unwitting communal sin. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淪o shall he do with this鈥 (Leviticus 4:20), which indicates that this service is performed only with this animal and not with the goats of the Festivals or the goats of the New Moons.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛 讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 注讘讬专转 诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 注讘讬专转 诪爪讜讛 讬讚讜注讛

The Gemara asks: And what did you see to include these goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship and to exclude those goats sacrificed on the Festivals and the New Moons? The Gemara answers: After noting that the verse included some offerings and excluded others, one can say: I include these goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, as they atone for the known transgression of a mitzva, i.e., idol worship, and therefore they are similar to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought for an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin with regard to a specific mitzva. And I exclude those goats sacrificed on the Festivals and the New Moons, as they do not atone for the known transgression of a mitzva, but rather they atone for the unwitting defilement of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

讜讻驻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 住诪讱 讜谞住诇讞 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转谉 砖讬专讬诐

The baraita resumes its interpretation of the verse. 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement鈥; this teaches that atonement is achieved even if the Elders did not place their hands on the head of the bull as they are commanded to do (see Leviticus 4:15). 鈥淎nd they shall be forgiven鈥; this teaches that atonement is achieved even if the priest did not place the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, as is required (see Leviticus 4:7).

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇驻住讜诇 讘讛讝讗讜转 讜诇讛讻砖讬专 讘住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara again asks: And as the verse does not specify which aspects of the service are included and which are excluded, what did you see to disqualify the offering in the case of the seven sprinklings; how did you derive that the phrase 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did鈥 teaches that the seven sprinklings are indispensable? And what did you see to render the offering fit in the absence of placing hands on the head of the offering and pouring out the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, based on the words 鈥淎nd the priest shall make atonement鈥nd they shall be forgiven鈥?

讗诪专转 驻讜住诇 讘讛讝讗讜转 砖诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜诪讻砖讬专 讗谞讬 讘住诪讬讻讛 讜砖讬专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讜转 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara answers: You should say the following logical argument: I disqualify the offering in the absence of the seven sprinklings, as these seven sprinklings are indispensable in all cases, as will be explained (40a), and I render the offering fit in the absence of placing hands on the head of the offering and in the absence of the pouring of the remainder of the blood onto the base of the altar, as these are not indispensable in all cases, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that they are not indispensable here either.

Scroll To Top