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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 4, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

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

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

Zevachim 52

The opinions of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva mentioned in the braita聽seem to be almost identical. Two opinions are brought to explain the difference between them. One raises the possibility that the remnants would be an essential part of the sacrifice (in the inner sin offerings). This issue is further discussed. Even if one says that neither of them holds this way, Rami bar Hama tries to prove that there is a聽tanna聽who holds this.


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

讚讘专讗讬 诇讙讜讗讬 讜讚讙讜讗讬 诇讘专讗讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬住讜讚 诇驻谞讬诪讬 注爪诪讜

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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讬讛讗 诇讬住讜讚 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛注讜诇讛 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25).

讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛注讜诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讝拽讬驻讛 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛 讗讙讙讜 讚讬住讜讚

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 鈥渁ltar of鈥 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: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of the burnt offering,鈥 it means that the blood must be sprinkled on the upper surface of the base.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讙讙 讬住讜讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖讬专讬 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 讟注讜谞讛 讙讙 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 讙讙 讬住讜讚

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讛 砖讬专讬 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讻驻专 讟注讜谞讛 讙讙 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 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讙讙 讬住讜讚 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 讛注讜诇讛 转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛

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: 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 any blood sprinkled on the altar must be poured on the base.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 诪注讻讘讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬诐 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪注讻讘 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪注讻讘

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗转 讻诇 讛讚诐 讬砖驻讱 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖讟注讜谉 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 诇讬住讜讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

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: 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). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渙f the bull鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗诐 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚 诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 讚诪讜 谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讞讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚 诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 讞讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚

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?

讬讻讜诇 讬注讻讘谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讚砖 砖诇诪讜 讻诇 讛讻驻专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the reason the Torah writes the phrase 鈥渙f the bull鈥 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诇讗 讞讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讜讛 讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚 诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讞讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚

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?

讬讻讜诇 讬注讻讘谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 (讛讚诐) [讚诐 讛驻专] 讬砖驻讱

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 4:7).

谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇注砖讛 讜注砖讗讜 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

The baraita explains: Since the verse inverted the terms in the clause, writing: 鈥淎nd all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out,鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讜讛转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛谞砖讗专 讘讚诐 讬诪爪讛 讜讛谞砖讗专 讬诪爪讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讛 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗转讛 讗讜转讛 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讛 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara continues its discussion of the remainder of the blood. Rami bar 岣ma 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: 鈥淭he priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:19). The verse states the word 鈥渋t鈥 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.

讗诪专转 讜讻讬 诪讗讬谉 讘讗转讛 诪讻诇诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讚诐 讝讘讞讬讱 讬砖驻讱 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讜讙讜壮 诇诪讚谞讜 诇谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 砖讗诐 谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讻讬驻专

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟谉 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讟谉 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪注诇谉 讗诐 谞转谉 诇诪讟讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转讞转讜谞讬诐 砖谞讬转谞讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇诪注诇谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专 转讗诪专 讘注诇讬讜谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 砖讬砖 诪讛谉 拽专讘 诇诪讟讛

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.

讚诪讬诐 (砖讬专讬讬诐) 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讬砖 诪讛谉 拽专讘 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诐 谞转谞谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讻讬驻专

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.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讚诪讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪诪专拽谉 转讗诪专 讘注诇讬讜谞讬诐 砖讛专讬 拽专谞讜转 诪诪专拽讜转 讗讜转谉 讗诐 谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讬诐

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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讛 诇诪讟讛

The baraita concludes: To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: 鈥淭he priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪诪专拽谉 诇讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讬专讬讬诐

Rami bar 岣ma 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

Rava said to Rami bar 岣ma: 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.

诪讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 砖住讜驻谉 讞讜讘讛 讘讞讜抓 注砖讗谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讞讜讘讛 诇诪讟讛 讜注砖讗谉 讘转讞诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讬驻专

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪诪专拽谉 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 驻专讜讻转

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗诐 讻讬驻专 讻诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻讬驻专 诇讗 讻诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻诇讛 讻讬驻专 讗诐 诇讗 讻诇讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专 砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the sacrificial rite performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the difference between them? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 讚诪注讻讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 诪讘讬讗 驻专 讗讞讚 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘转讞诇讛 讘驻谞讬诐

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.

讗讟讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not agree with this reasoning? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say (111a): Rabbi Ne岣mya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讜诇讗讜 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讜诇讗讜 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬

Rather, there is no proof that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m. 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鈥檌m.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗讜转 讛爪讘讜专 讜讛讬讞讬讚 讗诇讜 讛谉 讞讟讗讜转 讛爪讘讜专 砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜砖诇 诪讜注讚讜转 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘爪驻讜谉 讜拽讬讘讜诇 讚诪谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讚诪谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讻讬爪讚

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?

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 52

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 52

讚讘专讗讬 诇讙讜讗讬 讜讚讙讜讗讬 诇讘专讗讬 讛讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讬住讜讚 诇驻谞讬诪讬 注爪诪讜

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.

讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛 讬讛讗 诇讬住讜讚 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛注讜诇讛 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛 讻转讬讘

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: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:25).

讗讬 讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛注讜诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讝拽讬驻讛 讗诇 讬住讜讚 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诇 讬住讜讚 诪讝讘讞 讛注讜诇讛 讗讙讙讜 讚讬住讜讚

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 鈥渁ltar of鈥 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: 鈥淎t the base of the altar of the burnt offering,鈥 it means that the blood must be sprinkled on the upper surface of the base.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讙讙 讬住讜讚 诇诪讛 诇讬 拽专讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 砖讬专讬 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 讟注讜谞讛 讙讙 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 讙讙 讬住讜讚

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讛 砖讬专讬 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讻驻专 讟注讜谞讛 讙讙 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 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谞讛 讙讙 讬住讜讚 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 讛注讜诇讛 转谉 讬住讜讚 诇诪讝讘讞 砖诇 注讜诇讛

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: 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 any blood sprinkled on the altar must be poured on the base.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 诪注讻讘讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬

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.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬诐 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诪注讻讘 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 诪注讻讘

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗转 讻诇 讛讚诐 讬砖驻讱 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖讟注讜谉 诪转谉 讚诪讬诐 诇讬住讜讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

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: 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). What is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渙f the bull鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗诐 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚 诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讞讜讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 讚诪讜 谞讻谞住 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讞讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚 诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 讞讜讘讛 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚

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?

讬讻讜诇 讬注讻讘谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗转 讛拽讚砖 砖诇诪讜 讻诇 讛讻驻专讜转 讻讜诇谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The baraita continues: One might have thought that the reason the Torah writes the phrase 鈥渙f the bull鈥 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诇驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 诪注转讛 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讗讬谉 谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 诇讗 讞讜讘讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讜讛 讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚 诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 讚诪讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讘讬谉 诇讞讜讘讛 讘讬谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讟注讜谉 讬住讜讚

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?

讬讻讜诇 讬注讻讘谞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗转 讻诇 (讛讚诐) [讚诐 讛驻专] 讬砖驻讱

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 4:7).

谞转拽讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇注砖讛 讜注砖讗讜 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

The baraita explains: Since the verse inverted the terms in the clause, writing: 鈥淎nd all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out,鈥 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鈥檚 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.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诪注讻讘 讜讛转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讛谞砖讗专 讘讚诐 讬诪爪讛 讜讛谞砖讗专 讬诪爪讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞砖讗专 诇讗 讬诪爪讛 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛讗讬 转谞讗 住讘专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗转讛 讗讜转讛 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 讗讜转讛 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讛 诇诪讟讛

The Gemara continues its discussion of the remainder of the blood. Rami bar 岣ma 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: 鈥淭he priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:19). The verse states the word 鈥渋t鈥 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.

讗诪专转 讜讻讬 诪讗讬谉 讘讗转讛 诪讻诇诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讚诐 讝讘讞讬讱 讬砖驻讱 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讜讙讜壮 诇诪讚谞讜 诇谞讬转谞讬谉 讘诪转谉 讗专讘注 砖讗诐 谞转谞谉 讘诪转谞讛 讗讞转 讻讬驻专 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讻讬驻专

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讜谞讗诪专讜 讚诪讬诐 诇诪讟谉 诪讛 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讟谉 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讚诪讬诐 讛讗诪讜专讬诐 诇诪注诇谉 讗诐 谞转谉 诇诪讟讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘转讞转讜谞讬诐 砖谞讬转谞讬谉 讘谞转讬谞讛 诇诪注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 诇诪注诇谉 诇讗 讻讬驻专 转讗诪专 讘注诇讬讜谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 砖讬砖 诪讛谉 拽专讘 诇诪讟讛

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.

讚诪讬诐 (砖讬专讬讬诐) 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讬砖 诪讛谉 拽专讘 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诐 谞转谞谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讻讬驻专

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.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讚诪讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪诪专拽谉 转讗诪专 讘注诇讬讜谞讬诐 砖讛专讬 拽专谞讜转 诪诪专拽讜转 讗讜转谉 讗诐 谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讻砖专讬诐

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.

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讜转讛 讗讜转讛 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讬诐 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讬转谉 讚诪讛 诇诪讟讛

The baraita concludes: To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: 鈥淭he priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪诪专拽谉 诇讗讜 讗诇讜 砖讬专讬讬诐

Rami bar 岣ma 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 转讬转讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

Rava said to Rami bar 岣ma: 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.

诪讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 砖住讜驻谉 讞讜讘讛 讘讞讜抓 注砖讗谉 讘转讞诇讛 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讻讬驻专 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖讗讬谉 住讜驻谉 讞讜讘讛 诇诪讟讛 讜注砖讗谉 讘转讞诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讻讬驻专

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪诪专拽谉 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 驻专讜讻转

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻诇讛 诪讻驻专 讗诐 讻讬驻专 讻诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 讻讬驻专 诇讗 讻诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讻诇讛 讻讬驻专 讗诐 诇讗 讻诇讛 诇讗 讻讬驻专 砖讗诐 讞讬住专 讗讞转 诪讻诇 讛诪转谞讜转 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning the sacrificial rite performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat鈥 (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.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讞讚 讗诪专 诪砖诪注讜转 讚讜专砖讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讞讚 讗诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: What is the difference between them? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 讚诪注讻讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 诪讘讬讗 驻专 讗讞讚 讜诪转讞讬诇 讘转讞诇讛 讘驻谞讬诐

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.

讗讟讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讛讗 住讘专讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讗 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yo岣nan does not agree with this reasoning? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say (111a): Rabbi Ne岣mya 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讗诇讗 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讜诇讗讜 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 讜诇讗讜 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬

Rather, there is no proof that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檌m. 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鈥檌m.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗讜转 讛爪讘讜专 讜讛讬讞讬讚 讗诇讜 讛谉 讞讟讗讜转 讛爪讘讜专 砖注讬专讬 专讗砖讬 讞讚砖讬诐 讜砖诇 诪讜注讚讜转 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘爪驻讜谉 讜拽讬讘讜诇 讚诪谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讚诪谉 讟注讜谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 注诇 讗专讘注 拽专谞讜转 讻讬爪讚

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?

Scroll To Top