Zevachim 37a — the Talmud in English

From where [do we know] concerning all the bloods

that if some remained in the vessel after the sprinkling of the two blood presentations,

that they require the giving of blood to the base

of the altar, as is the law stated concerning a sin-offering, about which it is said: “And all its blood [remaining from the giving of the blood on the horns of the altar] he shall pour out at the base of the altar”?

The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.”

And if so, how did you learn from this verse that if he gave one presentation, he effected atonement? And we answer: This tanna, who expounds from “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out” that one presentation effects atonement, does not learn the law of pouring the leftovers from this verse; rather,

he derives it from Rabbi. For it was taught: Rabbi says:

It is stated concerning the blood of a bird sin-offering remaining after its blood was given on the wall of the altar,

“And what remains of the blood, he shall drain

to the base of the altar.” [Leviticus 5] And the word “of the blood” is superfluous;

there is no need for the verse to say “of the blood,”

but it should have written only, “And what remains he shall drain.”

And what does the verse come to teach by saying “

what remains

of the blood

he shall drain”?—

Since we have not learned

until now

except concerning

bloods that

are given as four

presentations on the four horns of the altar, namely, an animal sin-offering,

which require

these bloods

to be given at the base,

as is stated explicitly concerning it.

The other bloods,

which do not require four presentations,

from where

[do we know] that in them as well the remaining blood is required to be given at the base?

The verse states: “And what remains of the blood he shall drain.” There is no need for the verse to say “of the blood,”

and this word is superfluous.

And what does the verse come to teach by saying “of the blood”? It taught

the written text

concerning all the bloods

from which blood remained after their principal sprinkling

that they require

the

the giving of blood

remaining

at the base.

And since we learned the law of pouring leftovers from this verse, we can learn the law that one presentation effects atonement from the verse, “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.”

And we challenge this:

Still,

there remains a difficulty: Did the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out”

come for this purpose,

to teach that one presentation effects atonement? But

it is needed

to learn another law from it,

as was taught: From where [do we know concerning

bloods whose law is to be

given by sprinkling

from a distance, such as those of a burnt-offering, peace-offering, and guilt-offering, concerning which it says, “And they shall sprinkle,”

that

if

he gave them by pouring,

standing close to the base and pouring them upon it, that he

fulfilled

the obligation of giving the blood?

The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out.”

Its meaning is that the blood of all offerings shall be poured out, and the verse comes to teach us that even in those concerning which the law of sprinkling is stated, he fulfills his obligation through pouring. And since the verse is needed for this matter, how did you learn from it the law that one presentation effects atonement?

And we answer: The tanna who learned from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out” that one presentation effects atonement

held like Rabbi Akiva, who says: Neither is sprinkling included in pouring, nor is pouring included in sprinkling;

rather, each offering must have its blood given according to its law stated concerning it, and if he changed the manner of giving it, he did not fulfill the obligation of giving the blood.

And we find that Rabbi Akiva holds so,

as we learned

in tractate Pesahim [121a]: A group counted for the Passover-offering, if they are numerous, brings with it also a festival-offering, which is offered on the fourteenth of Nisan. Before eating, they must recite a blessing over the Passover-offering: “Blessed is He who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us to eat the Passover-offering.” And over the festival-offering they recite: “Blessed … to eat the offering.”

If he recited the blessing of the Passover-offering, he exempted [the blessing] of the offering,

and he need not recite a blessing over it. But if he recited the blessing

of the offering, he did not exempt

the blessing

of the Passover-offering, the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

The Gemara now reasons that Rabbi Ishmael’s reason is because he holds that sprinkling is included in pouring. Since the blood of the Passover-offering is given by pouring, while the blood of the festival-offering [which is a peace-offering] is given by sprinkling, the giving of the blood of the festival-offering is included in the giving of the blood of the Passover-offering, for if he gives the blood of the peace-offering by pouring, he fulfills his obligation. Therefore the blessing of the Passover-offering exempts it. But the giving of the blood of the Passover-offering is not included in the giving of the blood of the peace-offering, because if he gives the blood of the Passover-offering by sprinkling, he does not fulfill his obligation, since nowhere do we find that those given by pouring, if given by sprinkling, fulfill their obligation. Therefore the blessing of the offering does not exempt the blessing of the Passover-offering, for the Passover-offering is not included in “the offering.”

Rabbi Akiva says: Not

one blessing

exempts the

other

blessing, and the other does not exempt this one.

And his reason is that he holds that even those given by sprinkling, if he gave them by pouring, he did not fulfill his obligation. And one cannot learn from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out” that pouring is effective, since this verse comes to teach the essential law of the Passover-offering’s blood, that it is given by pouring, and one cannot learn two laws from it. And since the law of the Passover-offering’s blood is that it must be given by pouring, it follows that the festival-offering too is not included in the Passover-offering, for if he gives its blood by pouring, he does not fulfill his obligation; therefore the blessing of the Passover-offering does not exempt it.

Now, this tanna of the beraita, who expounds from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out” that one presentation effects atonement, holds like Rabbi Akiva concerning those given by sprinkling, that pouring is not effective for them, and the verse was not needed to teach this matter; it is superfluous for teaching from it that one giving of blood effects atonement. However, on the other hand, he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva concerning the matter that the blood of the Passover-offering is given by pouring. For Rabbi Akiva learned this from “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,” whereas according to the tanna of the beraita, this verse comes to teach that one presentation effects atonement, and it is not superfluous for teaching that the blood of the Passover-offering is given by pouring.

And we challenge this:

Still,

there remains a difficulty: Did the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out”

come for this purpose

and not for another exposition? But

it is needed for that which was taught: Rabbi Ishmael says: Since it is stated [

Numbers 18]

“Only the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat—

you shall sprinkle their blood on the altar, and you shall burn their fat,”

we learned

from this

that the firstborn requires the giving of blood and the burning of the sacrificial parts upon the altar.

Tithe and Passover, from where

that they too require the presentation of blood and the sacrificial portions upon the altar?

The verse states: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out.”

It follows that this verse is needed for another matter?!

And we answer:

He holds

that the tanna of the beraita holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei the Galilean,

who holds that the blood of the Passover offering is given by sprinkling, and derives this from what is stated concerning the firstborn offering itself.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: “

the

blood of it

you shall sprinkle”

was not stated

concerning the firstborn offering,

but rather “

the

blood of them”

was stated concerning it, in the plural. And likewise,

“its fat” was not stated,

but rather

“their fat.”

It follows that it does not come to teach only about itself, but rather

it taught concerning the firstborn offering, the tithe, and the Passover offering, that they require the presentation of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar.

And it follows that the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” is superfluous, to derive from it the law that one presentation atones.

And the Gemara returns to discuss the view of Rabbi Ishmael, who derived in the beraita the law of pouring the blood of the Passover offering from “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,”

for

it is necessarily Rabbi Ishmael who also taught the beraita above, to expound from this verse the law that, in the case of those given by sprinkling, if one gave them by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation. For Rabbi Akiva certainly does not hold so, because since he said that the blessing over the Passover offering does not exempt that of a sacrifice, it necessarily follows that his reason is that the Passover offering is by pouring and the sacrifice is by sprinkling. And one cannot say that Rabbi Akiva holds that the Passover offering is by sprinkling, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, for if so, each of them would exempt the other through its blessing, since both are by sprinkling.

And if so, we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Ishmael,

behold,

he derives this verse “

And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out”

for this purpose,

he derives from it that, in the case of those given by sprinkling, if one gave them by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation,

and he derives it

also

for this purpose,

to learn from it that the blood of the Passover offering is given by pouring? Is it possible to expound the same verse for two different matters?

And we answer:

Two tannaim

taught these statements

in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael.

That is, the tanna who understood Rabbi Ishmael’s view to be that this verse teaches that the blood of the Passover offering is given by pouring holds that the blessing over the Passover offering does not exempt that of a sacrifice, and Rabbi Ishmael did not disagree with Rabbi Akiva concerning this law, since, in the case of those given by pouring, if one gave them by sprinkling, he has not fulfilled his obligation. For since he expounded “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” concerning the presentation of the blood of the Passover offering by pouring, it is not possible to derive from it that sprinkling is valid for blood that requires pouring. Whereas the tanna who understood Rabbi Ishmael’s view to be that the blessing over the Passover offering exempts that of a sacrifice does not hold that the blood of the Passover offering is given by pouring, but rather its law is sprinkling. And the reason that the blessing over the Passover offering exempts it is that the Passover offering is primary, and the sacrifice is secondary to it.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Ishmael, who establishes it

—the verse “And you shall sprinkle their blood”—

entirely concerning the firstborn offering,

and that which is stated “their blood” in the plural is because it also refers to “ox, sheep, and goat,” which are mentioned concerning it—

that is what is written

later in that passage

“And their flesh shall be yours” [to Aaron the priest], for the flesh of the firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and therefore it is stated in the plural, since this too refers to these.

But according to Rabbi Yosei, who establishes it

also concerning the tithe and the Passover offering,

this verse,

the tithe and the Passover offering

are not eaten by the priests, but rather

the owners eat it,

and if so,

what is

the meaning of

“And their flesh shall be yours”

in the plural?

And we answer: The plural expression stated concerning “their flesh” does not refer to several types of firstborn offerings, such that because of this you would say that “their blood and their fat” is likewise understood in this manner, for several types of firstborn offerings can be expressed by the word “firstborn.” And that which is stated in the plural concerning the firstborn offering refers to a firstborn offering of one species, concerning which as well it is appropriate to say “And their flesh,” to teach you:

one unblemished, and one blemished.