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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 3, 2018 | 讻壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 51

The gemara聽concludes the questions regarding various methods of extrapolations – whether one can learn one and then another in the realm of kodashim. The聽verses mentioning pouring the extra blood into the base of the altar are extrapolated.

诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 讗祝 诪诇讬拽讛 砖诪讻砖专转讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 转讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛

and it purifies its tereifa from its impurity, so too its pinch-ing, which permits bird offerings with regard to consumption, should purify its tereifa from its impurity.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讻谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬拽转讛

Rabbi Yosei says: Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter purifies the tereifa of a bird from its impurity, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every a fortiori inference, namely, that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: It is sufficient for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a tereifa to be like that of the carcass of an animal of a kosher species that is a tereifa; i.e., that only its slaughter purifies it, but not its pinching.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 转讬讛讜讬 讛讬讗 诪砖讞讬讟讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 拽讗转讬讬谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: And that is not so. Let it remain there, i.e., one cannot learn from it, as that is a case that comes from the slaughter of non-sacred animals. The halakha of the pinching of a consecrated bird is derived through a paradigm from the halakha of the slaughter of a non-sacred bird, and the halakha of the slaughter of a non-sacred bird is derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the slaughter of a non-sacred animal. Outside of the realm of consecrated matters there is no question that a matter derived via one of the hermeneutical principles can then teach its halakha via another principle. The entire question under discussion is only with regard to the realm of consecrated matters.

讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讘谞讬谉 讗讘 诪讛讜 砖讬诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讜讘讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讘讘谞讬谉 讗讘

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the halakha as to whether a matter derived via a paradigm can teach its halakha to another matter via a juxtaposition or via a verbal analogy or via an a fortiori inference or via a paradigm?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇谉 讘讚诐 讻砖专 砖讛专讬 诇谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻砖专 诇谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻砖专 砖讛专讬 诇谉 讘讘砖专 讻砖专

The Gemara states: Resolve at least one of those questions. The Gemara cites a lengthy baraita before stating the resolution inferred from that baraita. For what reason did the Sages say that in the case of blood left overnight it is fit, i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is as it is in the case of sacrificial portions, where if they are left overnight they are fit. From where is it derived that in the case of sacrificial portions which are left overnight, they are fit? This is as it is in the case of meat, where if it is left overnight it is fit, because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.

讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

From where is it derived that if an offering that has left the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, since an offering that leaves its area is fit in the case of an offering brought on a private altar.

讟诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专 讘注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

From where is it derived that if an offering that has become ritually impure is placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, since one is permitted to offer an impure offering in the case of communal rites, i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.

讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪专爪讛 诇驻讬讙讜诇讜

From where is it derived that in the case of an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it beyond its designated time [piggul], if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? The halakha applies there since the sprinkling of its blood effects acceptance of the offering notwithstanding its status of piggul. The status of piggul takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it need not be removed from the altar.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽砖 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

From where is it derived that in the case of an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it outside its designated area, if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, since it is juxtaposed to an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time.

砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讚诪谉 讘讛谞讱 驻住讜诇讬谉 讚讞讝讜 诇注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

From where is it derived that in the case of an offering for which priests who are disqualified collected and sprinkled its blood, if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived from the halakha of these priests who are generally disqualified because they are impure, yet who are fit to perform the communal rites, i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure. In any event, the halakha of the sacrificial portions was derived via a paradigm from the halakha of meat that was left overnight, and then the halakha of blood was derived via a paradigm from the halakha of the sacrificial portions. Evidently, a matter derived via a paradigm can teach its halakha to another matter via a paradigm.

讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讻砖讬专讜

The Gemara questions the derivations of the baraita: But can one deduce the halakha of a matter that is not fit, i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, from the halakha of a matter that is fit, i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted to be eaten for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the baraita derive the halakha of meat that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the halakha of a private altar, which has no sacred area surrounding it?

转谞讗 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 专讬讘讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: 鈥淐ommand Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall thereby be kept burning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), which amplified it, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the baraita are mere supports for those halakhot.

砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 讗砖专 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讛讜讗 讚驻讙注 讘专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to the sin offerings whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary: As to the remainder of the blood which is left after the sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it must be poured on the western base? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the bull offering of the High Priest: 鈥淎nd the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting; and all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:7). This means that he must pour it on that base which he encounters first when he leaves the Tent of Meeting, which is the western base.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 讜诇讗 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: There are three verses that contain the same phrase. With regard to pouring the remainder of the blood of a bull offering of the High Priest, the verse states: 鈥淎ll the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that it must be on the base of the external altar, but not on the base of the inner altar, where he had sprinkled the blood.

讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬住讜讚 诇驻谞讬诪讬 注爪诪讜

The baraita continues: With regard to the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the Tent of Meeting, and all the remaining blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18). This teaches that the inner altar itself has no base at all.

讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛

Finally, the verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25). This teaches that you must give a base to the altar of the burnt offering, i.e., that the remainder of any blood placed on the altar must be poured on the base.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讬讛讗 诇讬住讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 转讞诇转 注讜诇讛 砖诪讻驻专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讬住讜讚

The baraita continues: Or perhaps it is not so, but rather the verse serves to teach that any sprinkling of blood on the corners of the altar of the burnt offering will be done on a part of the altar where there is a base. Rabbi Yishmael said: There is no need for the verse to teach that halakha, because it can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as the remainder of the blood, which does not effect atonement, requires pouring on the base of the altar, with regard to the initial sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, which effects atonement, is it not logical that it requires a part of the altar where there is a base?

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讛 讬住讜讚 转讞诇转 注讜诇讛 砖诪讻驻专转 讜讘讗讛 诇讻驻专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讬住讜讚

Similarly, Rabbi Akiva said: Just as the remainder of the blood, which does not effect atonement and does not come for atonement, nevertheless requires pouring on the base of the altar, with regard to the initial sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, which effects atonement and comes for atonement, is it not logical that it requires a part of the altar where there is a base?

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛

The baraita concludes: If so, why must the verse state: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25)? It is to teach that you must give a base to the altar of the burnt offering, i.e., that the remainder of the blood of the offering must be poured on the base.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 诪讗砖专 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara discusses this baraita. The Master says: The verse states: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18). This teaches that it must be on the base of the external altar, but not the base of the inner altar. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that necessary for the matter itself, to teach that the remainder of the blood must be poured onto the base of the external altar? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from: 鈥淲hich is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18), referring to the external altar. Therefore, the verse mentions the altar of burnt offering to exclude the base of the inner altar.

讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛

The baraita teaches with regard to the sin offering of a king: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25).

转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛

This teaches that you must give a base to the altar of the burnt offering, i.e., that the remainder of any blood placed on the altar must be poured on the base.

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诇砖讬专讬诐 砖讬专讬诐 讛讗 讘专讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜

The Gemara explains: Because if it enters your mind that the verse states this simply to teach as it is written, concerning this offering alone, why do I need these verses with regard to the sin offering of a king? If you would answer: The verses are needed to teach the halakha that the remainder of the blood must be poured on the external altar rather than on the inner altar, then the question remains: Is there any need for the Torah to teach this about the remainder? But the sprinklings of blood themselves are performed on the external altar, so why would one think that the remainder of the blood should be poured on the inner altar?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗驻讬讱 诪讬驻讱

And if you would say that one might mistakenly say that the priest reverses the sprinklings,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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 51

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 51

诪讟讛专转 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛 讗祝 诪诇讬拽讛 砖诪讻砖专转讛 讘讗讻讬诇讛 转讟讛专 讟专讬驻转讛 诪讟讜诪讗转讛

and it purifies its tereifa from its impurity, so too its pinch-ing, which permits bird offerings with regard to consumption, should purify its tereifa from its impurity.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讚讬讛 讻谞讘诇转 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 砖砖讞讬讟转讛 诪讟讛专转讛 讜诇讗 诪诇讬拽转讛

Rabbi Yosei says: Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter purifies the tereifa of a bird from its impurity, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every a fortiori inference, namely, that a halakha derived by means of an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: It is sufficient for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a tereifa to be like that of the carcass of an animal of a kosher species that is a tereifa; i.e., that only its slaughter purifies it, but not its pinching.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讛转诐 转讬讛讜讬 讛讬讗 诪砖讞讬讟讛 讚讞讜诇讬谉 拽讗转讬讬谉

The Gemara rejects this proof: And that is not so. Let it remain there, i.e., one cannot learn from it, as that is a case that comes from the slaughter of non-sacred animals. The halakha of the pinching of a consecrated bird is derived through a paradigm from the halakha of the slaughter of a non-sacred bird, and the halakha of the slaughter of a non-sacred bird is derived through an a fortiori inference from the halakha of the slaughter of a non-sacred animal. Outside of the realm of consecrated matters there is no question that a matter derived via one of the hermeneutical principles can then teach its halakha via another principle. The entire question under discussion is only with regard to the realm of consecrated matters.

讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讘谞讬谉 讗讘 诪讛讜 砖讬诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讜讘讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 讜讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讘讘谞讬谉 讗讘

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the halakha as to whether a matter derived via a paradigm can teach its halakha to another matter via a juxtaposition or via a verbal analogy or via an a fortiori inference or via a paradigm?

驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇谉 讘讚诐 讻砖专 砖讛专讬 诇谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻砖专 诇谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻砖专 砖讛专讬 诇谉 讘讘砖专 讻砖专

The Gemara states: Resolve at least one of those questions. The Gemara cites a lengthy baraita before stating the resolution inferred from that baraita. For what reason did the Sages say that in the case of blood left overnight it is fit, i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is as it is in the case of sacrificial portions, where if they are left overnight they are fit. From where is it derived that in the case of sacrificial portions which are left overnight, they are fit? This is as it is in the case of meat, where if it is left overnight it is fit, because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.

讬讜爪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

From where is it derived that if an offering that has left the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, since an offering that leaves its area is fit in the case of an offering brought on a private altar.

讟诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专 讘注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

From where is it derived that if an offering that has become ritually impure is placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, since one is permitted to offer an impure offering in the case of communal rites, i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.

讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪专爪讛 诇驻讬讙讜诇讜

From where is it derived that in the case of an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it beyond its designated time [piggul], if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? The halakha applies there since the sprinkling of its blood effects acceptance of the offering notwithstanding its status of piggul. The status of piggul takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it need not be removed from the altar.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜拽砖 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

From where is it derived that in the case of an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it outside its designated area, if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, since it is juxtaposed to an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time.

砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讚诪谉 讘讛谞讱 驻住讜诇讬谉 讚讞讝讜 诇注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

From where is it derived that in the case of an offering for which priests who are disqualified collected and sprinkled its blood, if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived from the halakha of these priests who are generally disqualified because they are impure, yet who are fit to perform the communal rites, i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure. In any event, the halakha of the sacrificial portions was derived via a paradigm from the halakha of meat that was left overnight, and then the halakha of blood was derived via a paradigm from the halakha of the sacrificial portions. Evidently, a matter derived via a paradigm can teach its halakha to another matter via a paradigm.

讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讻砖讬专讜

The Gemara questions the derivations of the baraita: But can one deduce the halakha of a matter that is not fit, i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, from the halakha of a matter that is fit, i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted to be eaten for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the baraita derive the halakha of meat that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the halakha of a private altar, which has no sacred area surrounding it?

转谞讗 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 专讬讘讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: 鈥淐ommand Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall thereby be kept burning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), which amplified it, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the baraita are mere supports for those halakhot.

砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 讗砖专 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讛讛讜讗 讚驻讙注 讘专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to the sin offerings whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary: As to the remainder of the blood which is left after the sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it must be poured on the western base? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to the bull offering of the High Priest: 鈥淎nd the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting; and all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:7). This means that he must pour it on that base which he encounters first when he leaves the Tent of Meeting, which is the western base.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 讜诇讗 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: There are three verses that contain the same phrase. With regard to pouring the remainder of the blood of a bull offering of the High Priest, the verse states: 鈥淎ll the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that it must be on the base of the external altar, but not on the base of the inner altar, where he had sprinkled the blood.

讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬住讜讚 诇驻谞讬诪讬 注爪诪讜

The baraita continues: With regard to the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall sprinkle the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the Tent of Meeting, and all the remaining blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18). This teaches that the inner altar itself has no base at all.

讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛

Finally, the verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25). This teaches that you must give a base to the altar of the burnt offering, i.e., that the remainder of any blood placed on the altar must be poured on the base.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讬讛讗 诇讬住讜讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讬住讜讚 转讞诇转 注讜诇讛 砖诪讻驻专转 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讬住讜讚

The baraita continues: Or perhaps it is not so, but rather the verse serves to teach that any sprinkling of blood on the corners of the altar of the burnt offering will be done on a part of the altar where there is a base. Rabbi Yishmael said: There is no need for the verse to teach that halakha, because it can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as the remainder of the blood, which does not effect atonement, requires pouring on the base of the altar, with regard to the initial sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, which effects atonement, is it not logical that it requires a part of the altar where there is a base?

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讻驻专讛 讟注讜谞讛 讬住讜讚 转讞诇转 注讜诇讛 砖诪讻驻专转 讜讘讗讛 诇讻驻专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讬住讜讚

Similarly, Rabbi Akiva said: Just as the remainder of the blood, which does not effect atonement and does not come for atonement, nevertheless requires pouring on the base of the altar, with regard to the initial sprinkling of the blood of a burnt offering, which effects atonement and comes for atonement, is it not logical that it requires a part of the altar where there is a base?

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注诇讛 转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞讛 砖诇 注讜诇讛

The baraita concludes: If so, why must the verse state: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25)? It is to teach that you must give a base to the altar of the burnt offering, i.e., that the remainder of the blood of the offering must be poured on the base.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 诪讗砖专 驻转讞 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara discusses this baraita. The Master says: The verse states: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18). This teaches that it must be on the base of the external altar, but not the base of the inner altar. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that necessary for the matter itself, to teach that the remainder of the blood must be poured onto the base of the external altar? The Gemara answers: That halakha is derived from: 鈥淲hich is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 4:18), referring to the external altar. Therefore, the verse mentions the altar of burnt offering to exclude the base of the inner altar.

讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛

The baraita teaches with regard to the sin offering of a king: The verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25).

转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛

This teaches that you must give a base to the altar of the burnt offering, i.e., that the remainder of any blood placed on the altar must be poured on the base.

讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讻转讬讘 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 诇砖讬专讬诐 砖讬专讬诐 讛讗 讘专讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讛讜

The Gemara explains: Because if it enters your mind that the verse states this simply to teach as it is written, concerning this offering alone, why do I need these verses with regard to the sin offering of a king? If you would answer: The verses are needed to teach the halakha that the remainder of the blood must be poured on the external altar rather than on the inner altar, then the question remains: Is there any need for the Torah to teach this about the remainder? But the sprinklings of blood themselves are performed on the external altar, so why would one think that the remainder of the blood should be poured on the inner altar?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讗驻讬讱 诪讬驻讱

And if you would say that one might mistakenly say that the priest reverses the sprinklings,

Scroll To Top