Zevachim 34b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara concludes:

tiyuvta of Reish Lakish, tiyuvta.

We learned in the Mishna: “And all of them,”

all those disqualified for the service,

who received

the blood with an invalid intention of

outside its time and outside its place, did not

cause the sacrifice to become invalid on account of this, since this is not service at all. And therefore,

if there is the blood of the life, he should return

a

fit

koen for the service

and receive

other blood from the animal, and sprinkle it.

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan:

One who is

disqualified

for the service, and received and sprinkled the blood,

what is the law: that he should make

the blood remaining in the neck of the animal

remnants?

Shall we say that, since the one disqualified for the service sprinkled the blood, the remaining blood acquires the status of the remnants of blood upon which sprinkling was performed, and it is no longer fit for sprinkling, because it is considered that service has already been performed with this blood, and consequently it will not help for the fit koen to return and receive and sprinkle; or shall we say that the sprinkling of one disqualified for the service is not considered sprinkling at all, and consequently it does not give the remaining blood the status of remnants, and the fit koen should return and receive

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: There is no invalid sprinkling

that

makes

the status of

remnants

for the remaining blood,

except

sprinkling performed with a pigul intention or an invalid intention, in which he intended to eat the flesh of the sacrifice

outside its time

or outside its place, which, despite being invalid sprinkling, is considered an act of sprinkling. And the reason

is: since it is effective

this sprinkling

for its pigul

—that is, with regard to establishing pigul and invalidity in the sacrifice, we find that it is called sprinkling. For even when one thinks a pigul intention during the services preceding sprinkling, the pigul does not take effect in the sacrifice until the time of sprinkling, and it establishes the name pigul in the sacrifice; and since it has the name sprinkling

with regard to pigul, the remaining blood is considered the remnants of sprinkling, and it may no longer be received and sprinkled.

But sprinkling that is invalid because it was performed by one who is disqualified for the service is not considered sprinkling at all, and a fit koen can return and receive and sprinkle the blood, and render the sacrifice fit. Rav Zevid taught the doubt of Reish Lakish in this manner: “Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: A cup of blood

with regard to its piggul.

That is, regarding the establishment of piggul and disqualification in an offering, we find that this act is called sprinkling: even when one forms an intention of piggul during services that precede the sprinkling, piggul does not take effect in the offering until the blood is sprinkled, and the sprinkling establishes the status of piggul in the offering. Since it has the status of sprinkling with regard to piggul, the remaining blood is considered the remnants of the sprinkling and may no longer be received and sprinkled.

that is invalid,

for example, it went outside the courtyard and became invalid because of having gone out, and a fit koen sprinkled it,

what is the law: that he should make

the blood remaining in the neck of the animal

remnants

of this sprinkling, so that there will again be no remedy for the sacrifice through returning and receiving, or shall we say that the sprinkling of invalid blood is not considered sprinkling, and the remaining blood does not have the status of remnants, and he can rectify the sacrifice by having a fit koen return and receive and sprinkle?”?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

The invalidity itself

of the one

who sprinkled the blood—

what is your view

concerning this with regard to the law of remnants?

If

you hold that the sprinkling of one

disqualified

for the service

makes

the law of

remnants

for the remaining blood, the same law applies:

an invalid cup also makes remnants,

and

if

you hold that the sprinkling of one

disqualified does not make remnants,

the same law applies:

an invalid cup also does not make remnants,

and the law is the same for both.

Rav Yirmeya of Difti taught

the doubt

in this manner: Abaye asked Rabba:

He received the blood in two cups, and performed all the blood-placing rites only from one of them:

this cup

—

what is the law: that it should make

the other cup,

the second cup,

rejected or remnants?

Shall we say that, since he did not place from it upon the horns of the altar, the matter is considered as though he rejected it with his hands, and it should not be poured onto the base of the altar according to the law of the remnants of blood placed upon the altar, but its law is like blood from which the altar-placing rites were not performed, which is not poured onto the base but is poured into the channel in the courtyard, and from there goes to the Kidron stream; or perhaps we shall say that the first cup, from which he placed, gives the status of remnants even to the blood found in the second cup, and it follows that the law of the blood of the second cup is like the law of the remnants of the placing, which are poured onto the base.

He said to him,

Rabba: This matter is

the dispute between Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis. For it was taught:

The verse

above,

at the beginning of the section of sin offerings, which deals with the ruler’s goat,

says

with regard to the remnants of the blood from the placings:

“He shall pour its blood

onto the base of the altar of the burnt offering” [Leviticus 4]; it does not say to pour “all” its blood. Whereas the verse

below,

later in the section of sin offerings, which deals with the sin offering of an individual,

says: “And all its blood he shall pour

onto the base of the altar.” This is apparently a contradiction between the verses as to whether all the blood must be poured or only part of it. Necessarily, these two verses deal with two different circumstances, with one coming to teach:

“From where is it derived concerning a sin offering whose blood he received in four cups, and placed one placing from

this

cup and one placing from that one

and likewise from all of them, that their law is

that all of them are poured onto the base? The verse states: ‘And all its blood he shall pour.’”

The verse teaches that in this circumstance, in which he placed from all four cups, the blood remaining in all of them has the status of remnants, and therefore it is poured onto the base.

One might

say that even if he

placed

all

four placings

only

from one cup, would all of them be poured onto the base? The verse states:

“And its blood

he shall pour,” which indicates that only part of the blood is poured.

How so? It is

the blood of the cup from which he placed that

is poured onto the base,

because it is the remnants of the blood of the placings.

And they,

the bloods in the other cups,

are poured into the channel, because they were rejected from being placed upon the altar. Thus, a cup makes its counterpart rejected, and through this the contradiction between the verses is resolved. For the verse indicating that all the blood is poured deals with a case in which he placed from all the cups, whereas the verse indicating that part of the blood is poured deals with a case in which the placing upon the altar was performed from only one cup.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: “From where is it derived concerning a sin offering whose blood he received in four cups and performed the four placings from one cup, that their law is that all of them are poured onto the base and are not rejected?”

are poured into the channel,

because they were rejected from being placed on the altar. Thus, one vessel causes its counterpart to be rejected, and the contradiction between the verses is resolved. The verse indicating that all the blood is poured concerns a case in which a placement was made from every vessel, whereas the verse indicating that only part of the blood is poured concerns a case in which the placements on the altar were performed from only one vessel.

The verse states: “And all its blood he shall pour.”

It follows that Rabbi Elazar holds that a cup makes its counterpart remnants. And this matter is therefore subject to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis.

And we raise an objection against Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon:

But it is written: “And its blood he shall pour,”

which implies that there are circumstances in which only part of the blood is poured onto the base. This apparently supports the words of the Rabbis, who distinguish between placing from all of them and placing from one of them!?

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: That

verse, “And its blood he shall pour,” comes to teach

to exclude remnants in the neck of the animal,

which became remnants of the blood received in the vessel, and are not poured onto the base but are poured into the channel.

implying that there are cases in which only part of the blood is poured onto the base. This apparently supports the opinion of the Sages, who distinguish between making placements from all the vessels and making placements from only one of them?!

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: That

verse, “And its blood he shall pour,” comes to teach

to exclude the remnants in the animal’s neck,

which became remnants of the blood received in the vessel and are not poured onto the base; rather, they are poured into the channel.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who received [the blood] with a fit [priest] and gave it to a disqualified [priest] shall return it to the fit [priest],”

and we further learned there: If he received it with his right hand and gave it to his left, he shall return it to his right. If he received it in a sacred vessel and gave it into an ordinary vessel, he shall return it to a sacred vessel. If it was spilled from the vessel onto the floor, and he gathered it, it is fit.

And it is necessary

for the Mishna to specify all these laws, which have a remedy through returning to the previous state, even though the principle in all of them is one: Blood that was received validly, even if afterward it remained in a state in which it was not fit to be so, does not become disqualified.

For if it had taught us

only the law of one who received [the blood] with a fit [priest] and gave it to a

disqualified [priest]

—that it is fit through returning it—

I would have said: What is “disqualified”

about whom the Mishna spoke? A priest who is

impure,

and therefore giving it into his hands does not disqualify it, since

it is fit

for an impure priest

for communal service

from the outset; and for that reason, in the case of an individual offering, it has a remedy through returning it. But giving it into the

left [hand],

which is not fit for service even in the case of an individual offering, one might say that

it would not

be helped by returning it; therefore the Mishna had to teach the law of giving it into his left hand, that it is fit.

And if it had taught us

the Mishna the law of giving it into the

left [hand],

but had not taught the law of giving it into an ordinary vessel, one might say that the reason giving it into the left hand does not disqualify it is

that it has

for the left hand

fitness on Yom Kippur,

on which the priest takes the coal-pan in his right hand and the spoon in his left. But an

ordinary vessel,

which has no fitness in any manner,

would not

have fitness through returning it; therefore the Mishna taught that in this case as well it is fit.

And if it had taught us

the Mishna the law of giving it into an

ordinary vessel,

I would have thought that the reason they do not disqualify it is

because ordinary vessels are fit

for

sanctifying them,

by consecrating them, and through this they would become fit for sanctifying the blood. But

these,

where the blood was spilled onto the floor, which is not fit for sanctifying the blood,

perhaps it would not

have a remedy; therefore

it is necessary,

the tanna had to state all these laws in our Mishna.

And we raise an objection against the basic law that the blood does not become disqualified because it is placed in a place that is not fit:

And should it not be

this blood

rejected,

like the law of anything that was destined to be offered and was rejected because of disqualification or another impediment, which, even after the disqualification has been removed, does not return to being destined to be offered? The same should apply to this blood, which was fit for the service and was rejected from it by being placed in a place that disqualifies it for service, so that it should not again become fit after it was rejected. Why, then, did the Mishna say that this blood has a remedy through returning it?

And we answer:

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Thus said Rav Yirmeya of Difti in the name of Rava: Whose [opinion] is this?

The tanna of the Mishna is

Hanan the Egyptian, who does not have

this law of

rejected [offerings].

As it was taught:

With regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur, which prevent one another—if the sent-away goat died, the sin-offering goat may not be offered unless they bring another goat in place of the one that died—the tannaim disagreed about this matter. Some hold that even if the sent-away goat died before the slaughter of the sin-offering goat, the sin-offering goat is rejected from being offered, and two other goats must be brought. And some hold that in this case the sin-offering goat is not rejected, because living creatures are not rejected; only if the sent-away goat died after the slaughter, when the blood of the slaughtered goat had been received in a cup, is this blood rejected from its services, and two other goats must be brought. However,

Hanan the Egyptian says: Even if the blood

of the slaughtered goat is already

in the cup,

because its blood has already been received, he

brings

its

fellow

of the slaughtered goat

and pairs it with it,

making the two of them one pair, and they are fit. Thus Hanan the Egyptian holds that there is no law of rejection at all, and even if, after something was fit for offering, it came into a state that disqualifies it, it has a remedy through returning it to the state in which it was fit.

Rav Ashi said

to explain why there is no law of rejection in our Mishna:

Anything that is in his power

to rectify and return to its fitness

is not rejected

because of that time in which it was not fit. Therefore the blood was not rejected, since it is in his power to rectify it and return it to its original state. But this is not so with regard to the sent-away goat that died: it is not in his power to bring another, for who said that another goat would be given to him?

Rav Sheya said: Rav Ashi’s [explanation] is reasonable:

That something which is in his power to rectify is not rejected. For

whom do you hear that he has

this law of

rejected [offerings],

which do not return and become fit?

It is Rabbi Judah.

He is.

As we learned: And Rabbi Judah further said: If the blood

of the slaughtered goat was spilled,

the goat

shall die—the goat

that was sent away

—and in their place two other goats shall be brought, because once the blood of the slaughtered goat was spilled, the sent-away goat was rejected, since its fellow can no longer be offered. And likewise, if

the sent-away goat died, the blood shall be spilled

of the slaughtered goat, since it was rejected from being offered. Thus Rabbi Judah holds the law of “rejected [offerings].”

And

on the other hand,

we hear Rabbi Judah saying: Anything that is in his power—

is not rejected.

As it was taught,

with regard to the blood of Paschal offerings that was on the floor [after its reception in a cup]: Since they would slaughter a very great number of Paschal offerings, and would hurry to perform it, the blood of several offerings would be spilled onto the floor of the courtyard, and the bloods would become mixed together:

Rabbi Judah says: One cup would be filled

by one of the priests

from the mixture of blood,

of all the offerings, after all the bloods on the floor of the courtyard had become mixed with one another,

and he would perform one sprinkling opposite the base.

For, as stated, since there were many offerings and they were frantic to perform them, if the blood of one of the offerings was spilled onto the floor before the sprinkling, this cup, in which there was a mixture of all the bloods that had been there, would render the offering fit through its sprinkling. And although Rabbi Judah holds the law of rejection, nevertheless this spilled blood was not rejected, because it was in his power to gather it. If so,

infer from it

that Rabbi Judah holds

anything that is in his power is not rejected.

And the Gemara concludes:

Infer from it!

The substance [of the matter] was taught: Rabbi Judah says: One cup would be filled from the mixture of blood, for if one of them were spilled, it would render it fit. They said to Rabbi Judah:

How can it be fit through gathering it and sprinkling it,

but surely

this spilled blood

was not received in a vessel,

and we learned in the Mishna above [25a] that if the blood flowed from the animal’s neck onto the floor and was not received in a vessel, it is disqualified!?

And we raise an objection against the Sages:

From where did they know

that the blood was not received in a vessel? After all, Rabbi Judah was not speaking about an incident that occurred, but merely stated a rationale for concern: perhaps the blood of one of them was spilled! And we answer:

Rather,

the Sages’ objection is:

Perhaps

this blood

was not received in a vessel,

and it turns out that he is sprinkling disqualified blood!?

He said to them

Rabbi Judah: