Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The braita in Zevachim 51 extrapolates from the third mention (by the nasi) of the base of the altar that for all sacrifices on the outer altar the remainder of the blood is poured on the base, the yesod. The braita then raises a question: perhaps the extrapolation should be different — that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the outer altar must be performed only on the sides where there is a base, i.e., not on the southeast corner, since the base did not extend there.
A difficulty on that suggestion is drawn from the verse’s wording. The verse states “to the base of the altar of the olah,” which suggests relevance to all sacrifices on the outer altar rather than only to the olah. But the sin offering, which is placed on the outer altar, is positioned on all four corners and not limited to the three corners where there is a base. If the verse had intended the latter ruling, it should have been phrased “to the base of the olah,” referring specifically to the burnt offering where that limitation would apply.
The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the unique inclusion of the word “altar” in the verse: it teaches that when blood is spilled on the base, it must be spilled on the roof of the base (top flat surface) and not on the wall of the base. With this reading, the subsequent lines of the braita, where Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva each say the law could have been derived by a kal va’chomer are reread including mention of the roof of the base.
Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva appear to assert the same logical argument using slightly different wording. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Papa propose possible distinctions between their positions. Rav Ada argues that because Rabbi Akiva used more extended language about the remainder of the blood, that it “does not atone” and “does not come for atonement purposes,” Rabbi Akiva must regard pouring the remainder as nonessential. Rabbi Yishmael, having said only “it doesn’t atone,” must hold that pouring the remainder is essential.
Rav Papa rejects this reading, maintaining that no one posits an obligation to pour the remainder of the blood. He narrows the difference between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva to the specific case of the bird sin offering: whether mitzui, squeezing out the remainder of the blood and placing it directly on the wall of the altar while squeezing, is essential. Rav Papa understands Rabbi Yishmael to require mitzui, while Rabbi Akiva does not.
A braita is then cited to support Rav Papa, showing that Rabbi Yishmael holds pouring the remainder is not essential. A difficulty is raised against Rav Papa’s position, but the Gemara resolves it. Rami bar Hama introduces a tana who maintains that for sin offerings whose blood is placed on the inner altar, pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is essential; Rava, however, rejects this understanding of the braita and its conclusion.
Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi dispute whether Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Akiva actually differ on the question of whether the remainder of the blood for inner sin offerings is essential.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Today’s daf is dedicated to Maggie and Rafi Sandler on the birth of her beautiful baby boy on Friday! Wishing her and her family a huge mazal tov and lots of nachat.
Zevachim 52
דְּבָרַאי לְגַוַּאי וּדְגַוַּאי לְבָרַאי; הָא אֵין לוֹ יְסוֹד לִפְנִימִי עַצְמוֹ!
such that with regard to an offering for which he sprinkles the blood on the external altar he should pour the remainder of the blood on the inner altar, and this is analogous to the halakha that he pours the remainder of the blood sprinkled on the inner altar on the base of the external altar, this is not possible. But the inner altar itself does not have a base, and therefore it is not possible to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the inner altar. Therefore, the verse must teach that the remainder of the blood of the burnt offering is poured on the base of the external altar.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִזְבְּחָהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה יְהֵא לַיְסוֹד. מִי כְּתִיב ״אֶל יְסוֹד הָעוֹלָה״?! ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ כְּתִיב!
The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the baraita: 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. The Gemara asks: How can the verse mean that? Is it written: At the base of the burnt offering? This would indicate that the blood of the burnt offering must be placed where there is a base. It is written in the verse: “At the base of the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:25).
אִי הֲוָה כְּתִיב ״אֶל יְסוֹד הָעוֹלָה״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בִּזְקִיפָה אֶל יְסוֹד; הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ – אַגַּגּוֹ דִּיסוֹד.
The Gemara answers: Even if the verse were to be speaking about sprinkling the blood of the burnt offering and is not referring to pouring the remainder of the blood, the term “altar of” is necessary, because if it were written: At the base of the burnt offering, I would say that the priest must sprinkle the blood on the upright wall of the base of the altar, i.e., the side of the base, rather than on the upper surface of the base. Now that it is written: “At the base of the altar of the burnt offering,” it means that the blood must be sprinkled on the upper surface of the base.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: גַּג יְסוֹד לְמָה לִי קְרָא? קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה שְׁיָרֵי חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת – טְעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד; תְּחִלַּת עוֹלָה, שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד?!
The Gemara explains the next clause of the baraita based on this understanding: Rabbi Yishmael said: Why do I need a verse to teach that the blood must be sprinkled on the upper surface of the base of the altar? It can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which does not effect atonement, nevertheless requires that it must be poured on the upper surface of 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 the upper surface of the base of the altar?
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וּמָה שְׁיָרֵי חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין וְאֵין בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר – טְעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד; תְּחִלַּת עוֹלָה, שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת וּבָאָה לְכַפֵּר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד?! אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״? תֵּן יְסוֹד (למזבח) [לְמִזְבְּחָהּ] שֶׁל עוֹלָה.
Rabbi Akiva explained similarly and said: And just as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which does not effect atonement and does not come for atonement, nevertheless requires that it must be poured on the upper surface of the base, 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 the upper surface of the base of the altar? The baraita concludes: If so, why must the verse state: “At the base of the altar of burnt offering” (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 any blood sprinkled on the altar must be poured on the base.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִים אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – מָר סָבַר מְעַכְּבִי, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מְעַכְּבִי.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the explanations of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The difference between them is whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood disqualifies the offering, so that all the sprinklings must be done again. One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood does disqualify the offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who adds the words: Which does not come for atonement, holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood does not disqualify the offering.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – שִׁירַיִם אֵין מְעַכְּבִים; וְהָכָא בְּמִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר מְעַכֵּב, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מְעַכֵּב.
Rav Pappa says: Everyone agrees that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not disqualify the offering. But here they disagree with regard to the issue of whether failure to squeeze the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood disqualifies the offering or not. One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that it does disqualify the offering, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that it does not disqualify the offering.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: ״וְאֵת כׇּל הַדָּם יִשְׁפֹּךְ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַפָּר״? לִימֵּד עַל פַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa that even Rabbi Yishmael agrees that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not disqualify the offering. The verse states: “And 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” (Leviticus 4:7). What is the meaning when the verse states “of the bull”? This seems superfluous, as the entire passage is referring to the bull. This serves to teach the halakha of another bull, i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, which also requires placement of blood on the base of the external altar. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה אִם מִי שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים חוֹבָה – טָעוּן יְסוֹד, מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים חוֹבָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן יְסוֹד?!
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yishmael said: It is not necessary for the Torah to write that the blood of the bull of Yom Kippur requires placement of blood on the base of the external altar. This is because it can be derived via an a fortiori inference: And just as if the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the sin offering of a High Priest, with regard to which it is not obligatory to bring its blood inside the Sanctuary, i.e., it is not an obligatory offering, as he brings it only if he sins, nevertheless requires sprinkling blood on the base of the altar; with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, with regard to which it is obligatory to bring its blood inside the Sanctuary, i.e., it must be brought every year, is it not logical that it requires sprinkling of its blood on the base of the altar?
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וּמָה מִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמוֹ נִכְנַס לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, בֵּין לְחוֹבָה בֵּין לְמִצְוָה – טָעוּן יְסוֹד, מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמוֹ חוֹבָה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן יְסוֹד?!
Rabbi Akiva said: Just as the bull of a High Priest, with regard to which its blood does not enter the innermost sanctum, whether as a fixed obligation or as a mitzva, nevertheless requires pouring of blood on the base of the altar, concerning the bull of Yom Kippur, with regard to which its blood enters the innermost sanctum as an obligation, is it not logical that it requires pouring of blood on the base of the altar?
יָכוֹל יְעַכְּבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – שָׁלְמוּ כָּל הַכַּפָּרוֹת כּוּלָּן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the reason the Torah writes the phrase “of the bull” is to teach that failure to place the blood on the base of the external altar disqualifies the offering. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the service of Yom Kippur, after sprinkling the blood in the Sanctuary: “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). This teaches that once he has sprinkled the blood in the innermost sanctum all the atonements are completed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מִשְּׂעִיר נָשִׂיא, מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה מִי שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים, לֹא חוֹבָה וְלָא מִצְוָה – טָעוּן יְסוֹד, מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים בֵּין לְחוֹבָה בֵּין לְמִצְוָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן יְסוֹד?!
The baraita continues: From now, i.e., based on this, one can state an a fortiori inference to derive the halakha of the bull of the anointed priest from the halakha of the goat of the king. Just as the goat sin offering of a king, with regard to which its blood does not enter inside the Sanctuary, whether as a fixed obligation or as a mitzva, but is sprinkled, like other individual sin offerings, on the external altar, requires that the blood be poured on the base of the altar (see Leviticus 4:25); with regard to the sin offering of a High Priest, the blood of which enters inside the Sanctuary, whether as a fixed obligation or as a mitzva, is it not logical that it should require pouring on the base of the altar?
יָכוֹל יְעַכְּבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶת כׇּל (הַדָּם) [דַּם הַפָּר] יִשְׁפֹּךְ״ –
If so, the verse that states that there is a requirement that the blood of the sin offering of a High Priest is poured on the base of the altar is apparently superfluous. One might have thought that the reason the Torah writes it is to teach that failure to pour the blood there disqualifies the offering. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall sprinkle of 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” (Leviticus 4:7).
נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַעֲשֵׂה, וַעֲשָׂאוֹ שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה; לוֹמַר לְךָ: שִׁירַיִם אֵין מְעַכְּבִין.
The baraita explains: Since the verse inverted the terms in the clause, writing: “And all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out,” and not: He shall pour out all the remaining blood of the bull, the verse detaches this positive mitzva of pouring the remaining blood from the other mitzvot in the verse. And the verse thereby made this a non-essential mitzva, to tell you that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar does not disqualify the offering. This baraita supports Rav Pappa’s interpretation, that Rabbi Yishmael agrees that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar does not disqualify the offering.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב?! וְהָתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – וְהַנִּשְׁאָר יִמָּצֵה,
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael hold that failure to squeeze out the blood of a bird sin offering disqualifies the offering, as Rav Pappa explained? But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). This means: And the remainder shall be squeezed out, i.e., it needs to be squeezed out only if some blood remains.
וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁאָר לֹא יִמָּצֵה! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
And that which does not remain, i.e., if there is no blood remaining, he shall not squeeze it out. This indicates that failure to squeeze the blood does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִי. דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה.
The Gemara continues its discussion of the remainder of the blood. Rami bar Ḥama says: This following tanna holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, as it is taught in a baraita: “The priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19). The verse states the word “it” to teach that it, the offering whose blood was sprinkled correctly, above the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. But this is not so for an offering whose blood was sprinkled below the red line, which is disqualified.
אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי מֵאַיִן בָּאתָה? מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל מִזְבַּח וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע, שֶׁאִם נְתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר. יָכוֹל אַף הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה כִּיפֵּר?
The baraita continues: You said this, but from where did you come? In other words, why would one think that such an offering is valid, so that the verse needs to teach that it is not? The baraita explains: From the fact that it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27), we learned that with regard to those offerings whose blood is placed with four placements on the corners of the altar, that if the priest placed them with only one placement, he has effected atonement. Therefore, since it is derived that if the priest does not present the blood on the specified corners of the altar, the offering is nevertheless valid, one might have thought that blood that should have been placed above the red line but that one placed below the red line effects atonement as well, and the offering is valid.
וְדִין הוּא – נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַטָּן; מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַטָּן שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָן – לֹא כִּיפֵּר, אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַעְלָן – אִם נָתַן לְמַטָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר!
The baraita continues: And it would seem there is a logical inference to counter this logic. It is stated that blood is to be sprinkled above the red line, referring to the blood of an animal sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the corners on the upper half of the altar, and it is stated that blood is to be sprinkled below the red line, referring to the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the lower half of the altar. Just as with regard to the blood about which it is stated that it is to be below the red line, if it is a case where one placed it above the red line, it does not effect atonement, as the Sages derived from the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar, and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9), so too, with regard to the blood, about which it is stated that it is to be above the red line, if it is a case where one placed it below the red line, it does not effect atonement.
לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁנִּיתָּנִין בִּנְתִינָה לְמַעְלָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְמַעְלָן – לֹא כִּיפֵּר; תֹּאמַר בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב לְמַטָּה?!
This logical inference is rejected: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled below the red line that was placed with a placement above the red line, that may be because they will not ultimately be sprinkled above. For this reason it does not effect atonement. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the blood that is to be sprinkled above the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, but which one placed below the red line, that it will not effect atonement? The blood that is to be sprinkled above the red line is different, as some of it is sacrificed below the red line, when the remainder of the blood is poured on the base of the altar.
דָּמִים (שִׁירַיִים) הַפְּנִימִיִּים יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב בַּחוּץ, וְאִם נְתָנָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ לֹא כִּיפֵּר!
The baraita responds: The blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary will prove it, as some of it is sacrificed outside, but if the priest initially placed the blood on the altar outside the Sanctuary it does not effect atonement.
לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּדָמִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים – שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶלְיוֹנִים – שֶׁהֲרֵי קְרָנוֹת מְמָרְקוֹת אוֹתָן; אִם נְתָנָן לְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרִים!
The baraita rejects this proof: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary, concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement, as they require additional blood placements, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the blood offered above the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, concerning which the corners of the altar complete the atonement? Accordingly, it is possible to say that if one placed them below the red line they are valid.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה.
The baraita concludes: To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: “The priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19), to emphasize that it, the offering whose blood was placed correctly, above the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. But this is not so for an offering whose blood was placed below the red line, which is disqualified.
מַאי שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן? לָאו אֵלּוּ שִׁירַיִים?!
Rami bar Ḥama proves his point: What does the baraita mean when it says: If you said that this is the halakha with regard to the blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary, concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement? What is required to complete the atonement? Is it not referring to this remainder of the blood and is teaching that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר:
Rava said to Rami bar Ḥama: If so, that the tanna of the baraita holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of the offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, you could derive the halakha that if the priest sprinkled the blood below the red line the offering is disqualified via an a fortiori inference.
מָה שִׁירַיִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים, שֶׁסּוֹפָן חוֹבָה בַּחוּץ – עֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ לֹא כִּיפֵּר; הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן חוֹבָה לְמַטָּה, וַעֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה לְמַטָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?!
Just as it is with regard to the remainder of the blood of the offerings of the inner altar, concerning which their ultimate rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is obligatory on the external altar, but if the priest initially performed the rite of placing the blood on the external altar, it does not effect atonement, with regard to those offerings whose blood is placed above the red line, concerning which their ultimate rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is not obligatory below the red line of the altar, and the priest initially performed the rite of placing the blood below the red line, is it not logical that it does not effect atonement? Since the baraita does not advance this claim, but derived the halakha from a verse, this indicates that pouring the remainder of the blood is not obligatory.
אֶלָּא אֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת.
Rava continues: Rather, when the baraita states that the blood of the offerings offered inside the Sanctuary are those concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement it means that the inner altar does not complete the atonement alone, but rather requires that blood also be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר״ – אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּלָּה, וְאִם לֹא כִּיפֵּר לָא כִּלָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֹאמַר: אִם כִּלָּה כִּיפֵּר, אִם לֹא כִּלָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר? שֶׁאִם חִיסַּר אַחַת מִכׇּל הַמַּתָּנוֹת – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the sacrificial rite performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that if he performed the atonement, he has finished the service, but if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: For what reason do we not say: If he finished, he has performed atonement, but if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement? This derivation would indicate that if one of any of the blood placements is lacking it is as though he did nothing.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי; חַד אָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְחַד אָמַר: שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the difference between them? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi engaged in a dispute concerning this. One says that interpretation of the meaning of the verse is the difference between them, i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. And one says that there is a difference between them with regard to whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering. According to Rabbi Akiva, it does not disqualify the offering, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it does disqualify the offering.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִים דִּמְעַכְּבִי; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין – מֵבִיא פַּר אֶחָד, וּמַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִלָּה בִּפְנִים.
The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree as to whether or not failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the altar disqualifies the offering. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: According to the statement of the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, if the priest finished placing the blood on the inner altar and the blood was spilled before he poured the remainder on the external altar, he must bring one bull and slaughter it, and begin the sprinkling of the blood as he did initially on the inner altar, so that there will be blood remaining from the sprinkling, and then he pours the remainder of the blood on the external altar. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi discusses the opinion that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the baraita cited here.
אַטּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ הָא סְבָרָא?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּנָּא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִין!
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not agree with this reasoning? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say (111a): Rabbi Neḥemya taught a halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of blood disqualifies the offering? Rabbi Yoḥanan also discusses the opinion of a tanna who holds that failure to pour the remainder of blood disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the baraita cited here.
אֶלָּא כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר – וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר – וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי.
Rather, there is no proof that Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda. He is stating a halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that it disqualifies the offering, whichever tanna that may be, but he is not referring to the dispute between these tanna’im. Here too, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is stating a halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that it disqualifies the offering, whichever tanna that may be, but he is not referring to the dispute between these tanna’im.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטּאוֹת הַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד – אֵלּוּ הֵן חַטְּאוֹת הַצִּבּוּר? שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים וְשֶׁל מוֹעֲדוֹת. שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן, וְדָמָן טָעוּן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת. כֵּיצַד?
MISHNA: These are the halakhot of the communal and the individual sin offerings. These are the communal sin offerings: Goats of the New Moon and of the Festivals. Their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires four placements on the four corners of the altar. How did the priest do so?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
New York, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
Zevachim 52
דְּבָרַאי לְגַוַּאי וּדְגַוַּאי לְבָרַאי; הָא אֵין לוֹ יְסוֹד לִפְנִימִי עַצְמוֹ!
such that with regard to an offering for which he sprinkles the blood on the external altar he should pour the remainder of the blood on the inner altar, and this is analogous to the halakha that he pours the remainder of the blood sprinkled on the inner altar on the base of the external altar, this is not possible. But the inner altar itself does not have a base, and therefore it is not possible to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the inner altar. Therefore, the verse must teach that the remainder of the blood of the burnt offering is poured on the base of the external altar.
אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִזְבְּחָהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה יְהֵא לַיְסוֹד. מִי כְּתִיב ״אֶל יְסוֹד הָעוֹלָה״?! ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ כְּתִיב!
The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the baraita: 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. The Gemara asks: How can the verse mean that? Is it written: At the base of the burnt offering? This would indicate that the blood of the burnt offering must be placed where there is a base. It is written in the verse: “At the base of the altar of burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:25).
אִי הֲוָה כְּתִיב ״אֶל יְסוֹד הָעוֹלָה״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בִּזְקִיפָה אֶל יְסוֹד; הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ – אַגַּגּוֹ דִּיסוֹד.
The Gemara answers: Even if the verse were to be speaking about sprinkling the blood of the burnt offering and is not referring to pouring the remainder of the blood, the term “altar of” is necessary, because if it were written: At the base of the burnt offering, I would say that the priest must sprinkle the blood on the upright wall of the base of the altar, i.e., the side of the base, rather than on the upper surface of the base. Now that it is written: “At the base of the altar of the burnt offering,” it means that the blood must be sprinkled on the upper surface of the base.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: גַּג יְסוֹד לְמָה לִי קְרָא? קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה שְׁיָרֵי חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת – טְעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד; תְּחִלַּת עוֹלָה, שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד?!
The Gemara explains the next clause of the baraita based on this understanding: Rabbi Yishmael said: Why do I need a verse to teach that the blood must be sprinkled on the upper surface of the base of the altar? It can be derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which does not effect atonement, nevertheless requires that it must be poured on the upper surface of 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 the upper surface of the base of the altar?
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וּמָה שְׁיָרֵי חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין וְאֵין בָּאִין לְכַפֵּר – טְעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד; תְּחִלַּת עוֹלָה, שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת וּבָאָה לְכַפֵּר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה גַּג יְסוֹד?! אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״? תֵּן יְסוֹד (למזבח) [לְמִזְבְּחָהּ] שֶׁל עוֹלָה.
Rabbi Akiva explained similarly and said: And just as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which does not effect atonement and does not come for atonement, nevertheless requires that it must be poured on the upper surface of the base, 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 the upper surface of the base of the altar? The baraita concludes: If so, why must the verse state: “At the base of the altar of burnt offering” (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 any blood sprinkled on the altar must be poured on the base.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִים אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – מָר סָבַר מְעַכְּבִי, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מְעַכְּבִי.
The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the explanations of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The difference between them is whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood disqualifies the offering, so that all the sprinklings must be done again. One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood does disqualify the offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who adds the words: Which does not come for atonement, holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood does not disqualify the offering.
רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – שִׁירַיִם אֵין מְעַכְּבִים; וְהָכָא בְּמִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר מְעַכֵּב, וּמָר סָבַר לָא מְעַכֵּב.
Rav Pappa says: Everyone agrees that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not disqualify the offering. But here they disagree with regard to the issue of whether failure to squeeze the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood disqualifies the offering or not. One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that it does disqualify the offering, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that it does not disqualify the offering.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: ״וְאֵת כׇּל הַדָּם יִשְׁפֹּךְ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הַפָּר״? לִימֵּד עַל פַּר יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa that even Rabbi Yishmael agrees that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not disqualify the offering. The verse states: “And 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” (Leviticus 4:7). What is the meaning when the verse states “of the bull”? This seems superfluous, as the entire passage is referring to the bull. This serves to teach the halakha of another bull, i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, which also requires placement of blood on the base of the external altar. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה אִם מִי שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים חוֹבָה – טָעוּן יְסוֹד, מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים חוֹבָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן יְסוֹד?!
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yishmael said: It is not necessary for the Torah to write that the blood of the bull of Yom Kippur requires placement of blood on the base of the external altar. This is because it can be derived via an a fortiori inference: And just as if the bull of the anointed priest, i.e., the sin offering of a High Priest, with regard to which it is not obligatory to bring its blood inside the Sanctuary, i.e., it is not an obligatory offering, as he brings it only if he sins, nevertheless requires sprinkling blood on the base of the altar; with regard to the bull of Yom Kippur, with regard to which it is obligatory to bring its blood inside the Sanctuary, i.e., it must be brought every year, is it not logical that it requires sprinkling of its blood on the base of the altar?
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וּמָה מִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמוֹ נִכְנַס לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים, בֵּין לְחוֹבָה בֵּין לְמִצְוָה – טָעוּן יְסוֹד, מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמוֹ חוֹבָה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן יְסוֹד?!
Rabbi Akiva said: Just as the bull of a High Priest, with regard to which its blood does not enter the innermost sanctum, whether as a fixed obligation or as a mitzva, nevertheless requires pouring of blood on the base of the altar, concerning the bull of Yom Kippur, with regard to which its blood enters the innermost sanctum as an obligation, is it not logical that it requires pouring of blood on the base of the altar?
יָכוֹל יְעַכְּבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״ – שָׁלְמוּ כָּל הַכַּפָּרוֹת כּוּלָּן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that the reason the Torah writes the phrase “of the bull” is to teach that failure to place the blood on the base of the external altar disqualifies the offering. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the service of Yom Kippur, after sprinkling the blood in the Sanctuary: “And when he has made an end of atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). This teaches that once he has sprinkled the blood in the innermost sanctum all the atonements are completed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.
קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְפַר כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מִשְּׂעִיר נָשִׂיא, מֵעַתָּה: וּמָה מִי שֶׁאֵין נִכְנָס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים, לֹא חוֹבָה וְלָא מִצְוָה – טָעוּן יְסוֹד, מִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים בֵּין לְחוֹבָה בֵּין לְמִצְוָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטָּעוּן יְסוֹד?!
The baraita continues: From now, i.e., based on this, one can state an a fortiori inference to derive the halakha of the bull of the anointed priest from the halakha of the goat of the king. Just as the goat sin offering of a king, with regard to which its blood does not enter inside the Sanctuary, whether as a fixed obligation or as a mitzva, but is sprinkled, like other individual sin offerings, on the external altar, requires that the blood be poured on the base of the altar (see Leviticus 4:25); with regard to the sin offering of a High Priest, the blood of which enters inside the Sanctuary, whether as a fixed obligation or as a mitzva, is it not logical that it should require pouring on the base of the altar?
יָכוֹל יְעַכְּבֶנּוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶת כׇּל (הַדָּם) [דַּם הַפָּר] יִשְׁפֹּךְ״ –
If so, the verse that states that there is a requirement that the blood of the sin offering of a High Priest is poured on the base of the altar is apparently superfluous. One might have thought that the reason the Torah writes it is to teach that failure to pour the blood there disqualifies the offering. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall sprinkle of 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” (Leviticus 4:7).
נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב לַעֲשֵׂה, וַעֲשָׂאוֹ שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה; לוֹמַר לְךָ: שִׁירַיִם אֵין מְעַכְּבִין.
The baraita explains: Since the verse inverted the terms in the clause, writing: “And all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out,” and not: He shall pour out all the remaining blood of the bull, the verse detaches this positive mitzva of pouring the remaining blood from the other mitzvot in the verse. And the verse thereby made this a non-essential mitzva, to tell you that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar does not disqualify the offering. This baraita supports Rav Pappa’s interpretation, that Rabbi Yishmael agrees that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar does not disqualify the offering.
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף מְעַכֵּב?! וְהָתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – וְהַנִּשְׁאָר יִמָּצֵה,
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael hold that failure to squeeze out the blood of a bird sin offering disqualifies the offering, as Rav Pappa explained? But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The verse states: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). This means: And the remainder shall be squeezed out, i.e., it needs to be squeezed out only if some blood remains.
וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁאָר לֹא יִמָּצֵה! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
And that which does not remain, i.e., if there is no blood remaining, he shall not squeeze it out. This indicates that failure to squeeze the blood does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִי. דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה.
The Gemara continues its discussion of the remainder of the blood. Rami bar Ḥama says: This following tanna holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, as it is taught in a baraita: “The priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19). The verse states the word “it” to teach that it, the offering whose blood was sprinkled correctly, above the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. But this is not so for an offering whose blood was sprinkled below the red line, which is disqualified.
אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי מֵאַיִן בָּאתָה? מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל מִזְבַּח וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע, שֶׁאִם נְתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר. יָכוֹל אַף הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה כִּיפֵּר?
The baraita continues: You said this, but from where did you come? In other words, why would one think that such an offering is valid, so that the verse needs to teach that it is not? The baraita explains: From the fact that it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27), we learned that with regard to those offerings whose blood is placed with four placements on the corners of the altar, that if the priest placed them with only one placement, he has effected atonement. Therefore, since it is derived that if the priest does not present the blood on the specified corners of the altar, the offering is nevertheless valid, one might have thought that blood that should have been placed above the red line but that one placed below the red line effects atonement as well, and the offering is valid.
וְדִין הוּא – נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַטָּן; מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַטָּן שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָן – לֹא כִּיפֵּר, אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַעְלָן – אִם נָתַן לְמַטָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר!
The baraita continues: And it would seem there is a logical inference to counter this logic. It is stated that blood is to be sprinkled above the red line, referring to the blood of an animal sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the corners on the upper half of the altar, and it is stated that blood is to be sprinkled below the red line, referring to the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the lower half of the altar. Just as with regard to the blood about which it is stated that it is to be below the red line, if it is a case where one placed it above the red line, it does not effect atonement, as the Sages derived from the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar, and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9), so too, with regard to the blood, about which it is stated that it is to be above the red line, if it is a case where one placed it below the red line, it does not effect atonement.
לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁנִּיתָּנִין בִּנְתִינָה לְמַעְלָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְמַעְלָן – לֹא כִּיפֵּר; תֹּאמַר בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב לְמַטָּה?!
This logical inference is rejected: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled below the red line that was placed with a placement above the red line, that may be because they will not ultimately be sprinkled above. For this reason it does not effect atonement. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the blood that is to be sprinkled above the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, but which one placed below the red line, that it will not effect atonement? The blood that is to be sprinkled above the red line is different, as some of it is sacrificed below the red line, when the remainder of the blood is poured on the base of the altar.
דָּמִים (שִׁירַיִים) הַפְּנִימִיִּים יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב בַּחוּץ, וְאִם נְתָנָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ לֹא כִּיפֵּר!
The baraita responds: The blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary will prove it, as some of it is sacrificed outside, but if the priest initially placed the blood on the altar outside the Sanctuary it does not effect atonement.
לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּדָמִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים – שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶלְיוֹנִים – שֶׁהֲרֵי קְרָנוֹת מְמָרְקוֹת אוֹתָן; אִם נְתָנָן לְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרִים!
The baraita rejects this proof: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary, concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement, as they require additional blood placements, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the blood offered above the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, concerning which the corners of the altar complete the atonement? Accordingly, it is possible to say that if one placed them below the red line they are valid.
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה.
The baraita concludes: To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: “The priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19), to emphasize that it, the offering whose blood was placed correctly, above the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. But this is not so for an offering whose blood was placed below the red line, which is disqualified.
מַאי שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן? לָאו אֵלּוּ שִׁירַיִים?!
Rami bar Ḥama proves his point: What does the baraita mean when it says: If you said that this is the halakha with regard to the blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary, concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement? What is required to complete the atonement? Is it not referring to this remainder of the blood and is teaching that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר:
Rava said to Rami bar Ḥama: If so, that the tanna of the baraita holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of the offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, you could derive the halakha that if the priest sprinkled the blood below the red line the offering is disqualified via an a fortiori inference.
מָה שִׁירַיִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים, שֶׁסּוֹפָן חוֹבָה בַּחוּץ – עֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ לֹא כִּיפֵּר; הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן חוֹבָה לְמַטָּה, וַעֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה לְמַטָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?!
Just as it is with regard to the remainder of the blood of the offerings of the inner altar, concerning which their ultimate rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is obligatory on the external altar, but if the priest initially performed the rite of placing the blood on the external altar, it does not effect atonement, with regard to those offerings whose blood is placed above the red line, concerning which their ultimate rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is not obligatory below the red line of the altar, and the priest initially performed the rite of placing the blood below the red line, is it not logical that it does not effect atonement? Since the baraita does not advance this claim, but derived the halakha from a verse, this indicates that pouring the remainder of the blood is not obligatory.
אֶלָּא אֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת.
Rava continues: Rather, when the baraita states that the blood of the offerings offered inside the Sanctuary are those concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement it means that the inner altar does not complete the atonement alone, but rather requires that blood also be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר״ – אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּלָּה, וְאִם לֹא כִּיפֵּר לָא כִּלָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֹאמַר: אִם כִּלָּה כִּיפֵּר, אִם לֹא כִּלָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר? שֶׁאִם חִיסַּר אַחַת מִכׇּל הַמַּתָּנוֹת – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the sacrificial rite performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that if he performed the atonement, he has finished the service, but if he did not perform the atonement, he has not finished. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: For what reason do we not say: If he finished, he has performed atonement, but if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement? This derivation would indicate that if one of any of the blood placements is lacking it is as though he did nothing.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי; חַד אָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְחַד אָמַר: שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the difference between them? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi engaged in a dispute concerning this. One says that interpretation of the meaning of the verse is the difference between them, i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. And one says that there is a difference between them with regard to whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering. According to Rabbi Akiva, it does not disqualify the offering, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it does disqualify the offering.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִים דִּמְעַכְּבִי; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין – מֵבִיא פַּר אֶחָד, וּמַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִלָּה בִּפְנִים.
The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree as to whether or not failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the altar disqualifies the offering. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: According to the statement of the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, if the priest finished placing the blood on the inner altar and the blood was spilled before he poured the remainder on the external altar, he must bring one bull and slaughter it, and begin the sprinkling of the blood as he did initially on the inner altar, so that there will be blood remaining from the sprinkling, and then he pours the remainder of the blood on the external altar. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi discusses the opinion that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the baraita cited here.
אַטּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ הָא סְבָרָא?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּנָּא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִין!
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yoḥanan does not agree with this reasoning? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say (111a): Rabbi Neḥemya taught a halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of blood disqualifies the offering? Rabbi Yoḥanan also discusses the opinion of a tanna who holds that failure to pour the remainder of blood disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the baraita cited here.
אֶלָּא כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר – וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר – וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי.
Rather, there is no proof that Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda. He is stating a halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that it disqualifies the offering, whichever tanna that may be, but he is not referring to the dispute between these tanna’im. Here too, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is stating a halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that it disqualifies the offering, whichever tanna that may be, but he is not referring to the dispute between these tanna’im.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטּאוֹת הַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד – אֵלּוּ הֵן חַטְּאוֹת הַצִּבּוּר? שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים וְשֶׁל מוֹעֲדוֹת. שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן, וְדָמָן טָעוּן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת. כֵּיצַד?
MISHNA: These are the halakhot of the communal and the individual sin offerings. These are the communal sin offerings: Goats of the New Moon and of the Festivals. Their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires four placements on the four corners of the altar. How did the priest do so?
