The opinions of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva mentioned in the braita 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 tanna who holds this.
Zevachim 52
06.04.2018 | כ״א בסיון תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
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?
Follow 
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.
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
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!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, 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.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
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 .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Carolyn Hochstadter and Margo Kossoff Shizgal
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
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?
Follow
