Zevachim 37a (לז.) — the Talmud in English

From where is it derived with regard to all the bloods

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

presentations, they require that the remaining blood be presented at the base

of the altar, as is the law stated with regard to a sin-offering, concerning which it is said: “And all its blood [remaining after the blood was presented on the horns of the altar] he shall pour onto the base of the altar”?

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

If so, how did you learn from this verse that when he presented one presentation he achieved atonement? And we answer: This tanna, who derives from “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” that one presentation achieves atonement, does not derive the law of pouring the leftovers from this verse. Rather,

he derives it from the teaching of Rabbi. As it was taught: Rabbi says:

With regard to the blood of a bird sin-offering remaining after its blood was presented on the wall of the altar,

“And the remaining blood shall be pressed out

at the base of the altar.” [Leviticus 5] The word “blood” is superfluous,

as there is no need for the verse to say “blood”;

it could simply have stated: “And the remaining blood shall be pressed out.”

And what does the verse mean by saying “

the remaining

blood

shall be pressed out”? —

Since we have learned

only until now

with regard to

the bloods

presented as four presentations

on the four horns of the altar—that is, the animal sin-offering—

which require

these bloods to receive

a presentation of blood at the base,

as is stated explicitly concerning it,

the other bloods,

which do not require four presentations,

from where

is it derived that the remaining blood must also be presented at the base?

The verse states: “And the remaining blood shall be pressed out.” There is no need for the verse to say “blood”;

this word is superfluous.

And what does the verse mean by saying “blood”? It teaches

that the verse refers to

all the bloods

from which blood remained after their primary sprinkling,

that they require

the

presentation of blood

that remains

at the base.

And once we have learned the law of pouring the leftovers from this verse, we can learn the law that one presentation achieves atonement from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out.”

And we challenge this:

Nevertheless,

there is still a difficulty: Is the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out”

really coming for this purpose,

to teach that one presentation achieves atonement? Surely

it is needed

to teach another law,

as it was taught in a beraita: From where is it derived with regard to

blood whose law is to be

presented by sprinkling

from a distance, as in the case of a burnt-offering, peace-offering, and guilt-offering, concerning which it is stated, “And they shall sprinkle,”

that

if

he poured it,

standing near the base and pouring it upon it, that he

has fulfilled

the obligation of presenting the blood?

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

This implies that the blood of all the sacrifices may be poured out, and the verse comes to teach us that even in the case of those for which the law of sprinkling is stated, he fulfills his obligation through pouring. Since the verse is needed for this matter, how can you derive from it the law that one presentation achieves atonement?

And we answer: The tanna who derived from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” that one presentation achieves atonement

agrees with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Sprinkling is not included within pouring, nor is pouring included within sprinkling.

Rather, the blood of each offering must be presented in the manner stated with regard to it, and if he changes the manner of presentation, he has not fulfilled the obligation of presenting the blood.

And we find that Rabbi Akiva holds this way,

as we learned

in tractate Pesaḥim [121a]: A group registered for a Paschal offering, if they are numerous, also brings with them a festival peace-offering sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan. Before eating, they must recite a blessing over the Paschal offering: “Blessed are You ... Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal offering.” Over the festival peace-offering one recites: “Blessed are You ... to eat the offering.”

If he recited the blessing over the Paschal offering, he exempted the blessing over the offering,

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

over the offering, he did not exempt

the blessing

over the Paschal offering; these are the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

The Gemara now understands that Rabbi Yishmael’s reason is that he holds that sprinkling is included within pouring. Since the blood of the Paschal offering is presented by pouring, while the blood of the festival offering, which is a peace-offering, is presented by sprinkling, the presentation of the blood of the festival offering is included within the presentation of the blood of the Paschal offering, for if one presents the blood of a peace-offering by pouring, he fulfills his obligation. Therefore, the blessing over the Paschal offering exempts it. By contrast, the presentation of the blood of the Paschal offering is not included within the presentation of the blood of a peace-offering, because if one presents the blood of the Paschal offering by sprinkling, he does not fulfill his obligation, since we do not find anywhere that one fulfills his obligation when blood requiring pouring is presented by sprinkling. Therefore, the blessing over the offering does not exempt the blessing over the Paschal offering, because the Paschal offering is not included in the category of offering.

Rabbi Akiva says: Neither

blessing

exempts the

other blessing,

and neither does the other exempt it.

His reason is that he holds that even blood requiring sprinkling is not valid if presented by pouring. One cannot learn from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” that pouring is effective, because this verse comes to teach the fundamental law concerning the blood of the Paschal offering, that it is presented by pouring, and one cannot derive two laws from it. Since the law of the Paschal offering’s blood is that it must be presented by pouring, the festival offering is likewise not included within the Paschal offering, because if one presents its blood by pouring, he does not fulfill his obligation. Therefore, the blessing over the Paschal offering does not exempt it.

Accordingly, this tanna of the beraita, who derives from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out” the law that one presentation achieves atonement, agrees with Rabbi Akiva concerning blood presented by sprinkling, that pouring is not effective for it; thus the verse was not needed to teach that matter and is available to teach that one presentation of blood achieves atonement. On the other hand, he disagrees with Rabbi Akiva concerning the law that the blood of the Paschal offering is presented by pouring. Rabbi Akiva learned this from “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,” whereas according to the tanna of the beraita this verse comes to teach that one presentation achieves atonement and is not superfluous for teaching that the blood of the Paschal offering is presented by pouring.

And we challenge this:

Nevertheless,

there is still a difficulty: Is the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out”

really coming for this purpose

and not for another exposition? Surely

it is needed for that which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yishmael 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 upon the altar, and you shall offer their fat,”

we have learned

from this

that the firstborn requires the presentation of blood and the offering of the sacrificial portions on the altar.

Tithe and Passover offering—from where

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

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

It follows that this verse is needed for another matter

The Gemara responds:

He holds

the tanna of the beraita

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

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

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: “

the

blood of it

you shall sprinkle”

was not stated

concerning the firstborn offering,

but rather “

the

blood of them”

is stated concerning it, in the plural. Likewise,

“its fat” was not stated,

but rather

“their fat.”

Thus, the verse does not come to teach only about the firstborn offering itself, but rather

teaches with regard to the firstborn offering, the tithe offering, and the Passover offering, that they require the application of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar.

It follows that the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured” is superfluous, and may be used to derive the law that one application atones.

The Gemara returns to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derived in the beraita the law that the blood of the Passover offering is applied by pouring from “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured,”

because

it is necessarily Rabbi Yishmael who also taught the earlier beraita, deriving from this verse the law that, in the case of offerings whose blood is applied by sprinkling, if one applied it by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation. For Rabbi Akiva certainly does not hold so, since, because he said that the blessing over the Passover offering does not exempt one from the blessing over the other offering, it necessarily follows that his reason is that the Passover offering is applied by pouring, whereas the other offering is applied by sprinkling. And one cannot say that Rabbi Akiva holds that the Passover offering is applied by sprinkling, in accordance with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, for if so, each of the two offerings would exempt the other through its blessing, since the blood of both is applied by sprinkling.

And if so, the Gemara asks:

But as for Rabbi Yishmael,

after all,

this verse “

And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured”

he derives it for this purpose;

he derives from it that, in the case of offerings whose blood is applied by sprinkling, if one applied it by pouring, he has fulfilled his obligation,

and he derives it

also

for this purpose,

to teach from it that the blood of the Passover offering is applied by pouring? Is it possible to derive two different matters from the same verse?

The Gemara responds:

Two tannaim

taught these statements

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael.

That is, the tanna who understood Rabbi Yishmael to derive from this verse that the blood of the Passover offering is applied by pouring holds that the blessing over the Passover offering does not exempt one from the blessing over the other offering, and that Rabbi Yishmael did not disagree with Rabbi Akiva on this matter, because, in his view, when blood that requires pouring is applied by sprinkling, one has not fulfilled the obligation. Since he derived from “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured” that the blood of the Passover offering must be applied by pouring, it cannot be derived from that verse that sprinkling is valid for blood that requires pouring. By contrast, the tanna who understood Rabbi Yishmael to hold that the blessing over the Passover offering exempts one from the blessing over the other offering does not hold that the blood of the Passover offering is applied by pouring; rather, its blood is applied by sprinkling. The reason that the blessing over the Passover offering exempts one from the blessing over the other offering is that the Passover offering is primary, while the other offering is subordinate to it.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yishmael, who establishes it

the verse “And you shall sprinkle their blood”

entirely with regard to the firstborn offering,

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

this is why it is written

later in that passage

“And their flesh shall be yours”

[for Aaron the priest], since the flesh of the firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and therefore it is stated in the plural, indicating that this too refers to all of these species.

But according to Rabbi Yosei, who establishes it

this verse

also with regard to the tithe offering and the Passover offering,

after all,

the tithe offering and the Passover offering

are not eaten by the priests; rather,

the owners eat it.

If so,

what is the meaning of “And their flesh shall be yours”

in the plural?

The Gemara responds: The plural expression used with regard to “their flesh” does not refer to several types of firstborn offerings, such that one would say that “their blood and their fat” should likewise be understood in that manner, for several types of firstborn offerings can be designated by the singular expression “firstborn.” Rather, the plural expression used with regard to the firstborn offering refers to a firstborn offering of a single species, with regard to which it is also appropriate to say “and their flesh,” to teach you that there is

both an unblemished one and one with a permanent blemish.