Zevachim 52

דבראי לגואי ודגואי לבראי הא אין לו יסוד לפנימי עצמו

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.

או אינו אלא מזבח של עולה יהא ליסוד מי כתיב אל יסוד העולה אל יסוד מזבח העולה כתיב

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).

אי הוה כתיב אל יסוד העולה הוה אמינא בזקיפה אל יסוד השתא דכתיב אל יסוד מזבח העולה אגגו דיסוד

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.

אמר רבי ישמעאל גג יסוד למה לי קרא קל וחומר הוא ומה שירי חטאת שאינה מכפרת טעונה גג יסוד תחלת עולה שמכפרת אינו דין שטעונה גג יסוד

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?

אמר רבי עקיבא ומה שירי חטאת שאין מכפרין ואין באין לכפר טעונה גג יסוד תחלת עולה שמכפרת ובאה לכפר אינו דין שטעונה גג יסוד אם כן מה תלמוד לומר אל יסוד מזבח העולה תן יסוד למזבח של עולה

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.

מאי בינייהו אמר רב אדא בר אהבה שירים מעכבים איכא בינייהו מר סבר מעכבי ומר סבר לא מעכבי

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.

רב פפא אמר דכולי עלמא שירים אין מעכבים והכא במיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב קא מיפלגי מר סבר מעכב ומר סבר לא מעכב

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.

תניא כוותיה דרב פפא ואת כל הדם ישפך מה תלמוד לומר הפר לימד על פר יום הכיפורים שטעון מתן דמים ליסוד דברי רבי

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.

אמר רבי ישמעאל קל וחומר ומה אם מי שאין נכנס דמו לפנים חובה טעון יסוד מי שנכנס דמו לפנים חובה אינו דין שטעון יסוד

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?

אמר רבי עקיבא ומה מי שאין דמו נכנס לפני ולפנים בין לחובה בין למצוה טעון יסוד מי שנכנס דמו חובה לפני ולפנים אינו דין שטעון יסוד

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?

יכול יעכבנו תלמוד לומר וכלה מכפר את הקדש שלמו כל הכפרות כולן דברי רבי ישמעאל

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.

קל וחומר לפר כהן משיח משעיר נשיא מעתה ומה מי שאין נכנס דמו לפנים לא חובה ולא מצוה טעון יסוד מי שנכנס דמו לפנים בין לחובה בין למצוה אינו דין שטעון יסוד

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?

יכול יעכבנו תלמוד לומר ואת כל (הדם) [דם הפר] ישפך

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).

נתקו הכתוב לעשה ועשאו שירי מצוה לומר לך שירים אין מעכבין

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.

וסבר רבי ישמעאל מיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב והתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל והנשאר בדם ימצה והנשאר ימצה

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.

ושאינו נשאר לא ימצה תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי ישמעאל

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.

אמר רמי בר חמא האי תנא סבר שירים מעכבי דתניא הכהן המחטא אתה אותה שניתן דמה למעלה ולא אותה שניתן דמה למטה

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.

אמרת וכי מאין באתה מכלל שנאמר ודם זבחיך ישפך על מזבח וגו׳ למדנו לניתנין במתן ארבע שאם נתנן במתנה אחת כיפר יכול אף הניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה כיפר

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.

ודין הוא נאמרו דמים למעלה ונאמרו דמים למטן מה דמים האמורים למטן שנתנן למעלן לא כיפר אף דמים האמורים למעלן אם נתן למטה לא כיפר

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.

לא אם אמרת בתחתונים שניתנין בנתינה למעלה שאין סופן למעלן לא כיפר תאמר בעליונים שנתנן למטה שיש מהן קרב למטה

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.

דמים (שיריים) הפנימיים יוכיחו שיש מהן קרב בחוץ ואם נתנן בתחלה בחוץ לא כיפר

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.

לא אם אמרת בדמים הפנימיים שאין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן תאמר בעליונים שהרי קרנות ממרקות אותן אם נתנן למטה כשרים

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.

תלמוד לומר אותה אותה שניתן דמים למעלה ולא שניתן דמה למטה

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.

מאי שאין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן לאו אלו שיריים

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?

אמר ליה רבא אי הכי תיתי בקל וחומר

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.

מה שיריים הפנימיים שסופן חובה בחוץ עשאן בתחלה בחוץ לא כיפר הניתנין למעלה שאין סופן חובה למטה ועשאן בתחלה למטה אינו דין שלא כיפר

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.

אלא אין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן בלבד אלא פרוכת

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.

תנו רבנן וכלה מכפר אם כיפר כלה ואם לא כיפר לא כלה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו רבי יהודה מפני מה לא נאמר אם כלה כיפר אם לא כלה לא כיפר שאם חיסר אחת מכל המתנות לא עשה ולא כלום

§ 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.

מאי בינייהו רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי חד אמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו וחד אמר שיריים מעכבין איכא בינייהו

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.

תסתיים דרבי יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר שיריים דמעכבי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי לדברי האומר שיריים מעכבין מביא פר אחד ומתחיל בתחלה בפנים

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.

אטו רבי יוחנן לית ליה הא סברא והאמר רבי יוחנן תנא רבי נחמיה כדברי האומר שירים מעכבין

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.

אלא כדברי האומר ולאו להני תנאי הכא נמי כדברי האומר ולאו להני תנאי

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.

מתני׳ חטאות הצבור והיחיד אלו הן חטאות הצבור שעירי ראשי חדשים ושל מועדות שחיטתן בצפון וקיבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון ודמן טעון ארבע מתנות על ארבע קרנות כיצד

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?