Zevachim 38b — the Talmud in English

What, is it not

that he sprinkled on the wall of the golden altar

the division of the altar,

opposite half its height? For this is how the word “purify it” is interpreted

, as people say: “The sun purified, and it became half the day.”

That is, noon, which is half the day. And “purify it” of the altar likewise means half the altar. And when he gives the blood on half of the altar, it is impossible to be exact so that some of the blood will not be above and some of it below — we have indeed found blood half of which is above and half of which is below !?

And we answer:

Rava bar Sheila said: No,

he sprinkled not on half of the altar, but

on its exposed surface

of the altar, that is, its roof. And the intention of the verse is to say that after he purified it of the ashes upon it and exposed its roof, he sprinkled some of the blood there. Therefore it is called “its purification,” because he purifies it and makes it beautiful, as

it is written

in the verse:

“And like the very substance of the heavens for purity”

[Exodus 24].

And the Gemara continues and raises an objection:

But there are the remainder

of the blood, whose principal gifts are given above, while its remainder is poured onto the base of the altar, and it follows that half the blood is above and half below

!? And we answer: The giving of the

remainder does not invalidate

the atonement. And what we said—that we have not found blood given half above and half below—refers to the giving of blood that invalidates the atonement

. And we raise an objection:

But there is the remainder

of the blood of

the inner

blood, whose principal gifts are given above on the horns of the inner altar, while its remainder is poured onto the base of the outer altar below,

for there is one who says

below, in the chapter “Which are the places,” [52a], that its pouring onto the base

invalidates

!? And we answer:

In one place

only—that is, on a single altar—

we say

that we have not found blood half of which is above and half of which is below. But the remainder of the inner blood is not given on the inner altar; rather, it is poured onto the base of the outer altar .

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says

concerning the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

Beit Shammai say: The two gifts that

are given on the horns of the altar

in

a

sin offering, and the one gift that

is given

in

every sacrifice,

these are all the offerings

—

permit

the sacrificial portions of the offering for burning, and the meat for eating. But as long as he has not given the two gifts in a sin offering, the sacrificial portions and the meat are not permitted.

And

likewise,

render piggul

the two gifts in a sin offering. That is, only if he formed a piggul intention while giving both of them does the offering become piggul; but if he formed the piggul intention in only one of them, and remained silent and did not form an intention in the second, the offering does not become piggul, since “one does not render piggul through half of a permitting act,” and the giving of both gifts together is the “permitting act,” whereas one giving is only “half a permitting act”

. Whereas

Beit Hillel say:

The one gift

in a sin offering and the one gift

in

all the offerings,

this

permits

the sacrificial portions and its meat, and

renders piggul

if he formed a piggul intention while giving it

. Rav Oshaya challenges this

the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

If so,

according to your words, that according to Beit Shammai the offering does not become piggul unless he formed an intention while giving both gifts, whereas according to Beit Hillel he renders it piggul even if he formed an intention in one

, let him teach it

this dispute

among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel

, which were arranged in tractate Eduyot. For Beit Shammai are lenient here, saying that a piggul intention while giving only one gift does not render it piggul, whereas for Beit Hillel it does render it piggul !?

And we answer:

Rava said to him

to Rav Oshaya:

When it was asked,

when this Mishna was asked about in the beit-midrash [in tractate Eduyot], it was asked only

with regard to

the matter of

the permitting

of the sacrificial portions and the meat;

it was asked,

and not with regard to a piggul intention in one gift. For the questioner stood and asked: If he gave one gift and the blood was spilled, were the sacrificial portions and the meat permitted, or were they not permitted? And Beit Shammai stood by their view and declared it invalid, while Beit Hillel deemed it valid,

so Beit Shammai were stringent for them

in this law. But from here we learn that according to Beit Shammai one gift does not render piggul, and with regard to this Beit Shammai are indeed lenient

. Rabbi Yohanan said: The three gifts

of the blood

in sin offerings,

even though they do not invalidate the atonement, and their giving is not as significant as the first giving, which effects atonement, nevertheless, if he did not give the three gifts before sunset, the blood became invalid at sunset, even though he had already given one gift from it, and he cannot continue and give the remaining gifts. And therefore

they do not come

on the altar

at night,

and they come after the death

of the owners of the offering. For if he gave the first gift, and afterward the owner died, he had already attained atonement through the first, and the blood no longer bears the status of a “complete sin offering,” and it is not rendered invalid because of a sin offering whose owners died

. And one who brings up any of them

outside

the Temple courtyard

is liable.

Rav Pappa said:

These three last gifts

have among them

some matters whose law, in the laws of blood, is

like their beginning,

like the beginning of the giving of the blood, in the first giving.

And they have among them

some matters in which they are

like their end,

for in these matters they have the law of “the remainder of the blood”:

And at first Rav Pappa states the matters whose law is like the beginning of the giving of the blood:

a. One who sprinkles them

outside

is liable, since they are fit to be given inside as a complete act of sprinkling

. b .

And

it is forbidden to give them at

night

, since they become invalid for sprinkling at sunset

. c. And one is liable for them because of

non-priesthood

, for if a non-priest sprinkled them inside, he is liable for death . d

.

And

they require

a service vessel.

e. And their giving is on the

horn.

f

.

And

they must be given on the horns of the altar

with the finger.

g. And if some of the blood splashed onto the garment after the first gift had been given, it requires

washing

, as though it had splashed beforehand. But if some of the blood splashed onto the garment after all the blood gifts had already been given, the garment does not require washing, for we learned this matter from the verse, “upon which it is sprinkled”: excluding that which has already been sprinkled .

8.

And

so there is in them the law of

“remnants.”

For if he received the blood of the sin-offering in four cups instead of one cup, and performed one application from each cup, then even the blood from the three cups from which the applications were made after the first application has the law of the remnants of the blood, and he pours it onto the base of the altar.

In all these details, the law of the blood of the last three applications is

like their beginning,

that is, like the law of the first application.

But, on the other hand, there are matters whose law is like their end—

a. They are brought even after

the death

of the owner of the offering, and they do not have the law of the blood of a sin-offering whose owners died.

b. And

they do not permit,

the throwing of them does not permit the flesh and the fats, since they were already permitted through the first application. c.

And they do not render [the offering] piggul

the offering. For if he performed the first application properly, and afterward formulated a thought of piggul while performing the other three applications, the offering does not become piggul.

d.

And it does not enter inside.

They do not have the status of a disqualification through entering inside the Sanctuary, so that if he performed one application in its place and afterward brought the remainder of the blood inside, the blood does not become disqualified on account of a sin-offering whose blood entered inside, because concerning this law it is stated: “And every sin-offering whose blood is brought to effect atonement in the Sanctuary” , and we learned from here that Scripture spoke only of blood fit to effect atonement; excluded is this blood, which is not fit to effect atonement, since the owners had already achieved atonement through the first application.

And in all these laws, the law of this blood is

like their end,

like the remnants of the blood.

Rav Pappa said: From where do I say it

from where did I learn to say this: that even after the first application, if some of the blood of the sin-offering spattered onto a garment, it requires laundering

!? For we learned [below 93a]:

below, on 93a:

If blood

spattered

from the neck

of the animal of the sin-offering

onto a garment, it does not require laundering,

because we learned from the verse “which is sprinkled” [Leviticus 7] that only blood fit for sprinkling requires laundering; excluded is blood that spattered from the neck, which is not fit for sprinkling, since it was not received in a sacred vessel.

And likewise, if blood spattered onto a garment

from the horn,

after the blood had already been applied to the horn of the altar,

and from the base,

after the remnants had been poured onto the base, some of this blood spattered onto the garment,

it does not require laundering.

And this too is learned from “which is sprinkled,” excluding that which had already been sprinkled.

And Rav Pappa infers: Specifically when some of the blood that is not fit to be applied upon the horn has already spattered, then it does not require laundering.

But

if it spattered

from

the blood

fit for the horn, it requires laundering!

But the blood designated for these three applications is also fit to be applied upon the horn, and therefore, if some of it spattered, it requires laundering.

And the Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa:

But according to your reasoning,

you inferred, “but from that which is fit for the horn, it requires laundering”; yet it was also stated in the Mishna that if some spattered

from the base, it does not require laundering,

and if so, will you also infer, according to your approach,

but

if some spattered

from

the blood

fit for the base,

that is, the remnants of the blood after all its applications,

it requires laundering!?

But

“which is sprinkled” is written

in the verse, and we expounded from it:

excluding that which had already been sprinkled!?

And the Gemara concludes the objection and says: Rav Pappa cannot learn his reason from this Mishna, for necessarily one must say:

Who is this?

Who is the tanna who taught this Mishna?

Rabbi Nehemiah,

who is the only tanna who holds that even the blood that remains as remnants is treated according to the laws of the blood of the sin-offering.

For we learned: Rabbi Nehemiah says: The remnants of the blood,

even of external sin-offerings,

if he offered them outside, he is liable.

That is because, according to Rabbi Nehemiah, the law of the blood of a sin-offering applies to them. According to his view, the same applies if some of the remnants spattered onto a garment: it requires laundering.

And if so, Rav Pappa’s proof is rejected, for we do not hold in accordance with Rabbi Nehemiah.

But the Gemara rejects this and argues:

You may say that you have heard Rabbi Nehemiah

consider the remnants to be the blood of a sin-offering specifically

with regard to offering

outside, and only because of this is one liable,

just as is the case with the limbs and fats,

for one is liable for them if he offered them outside, since they are fit to be offered inside; and likewise, with regard to the remnants of the blood, one must be liable for throwing it outside, since it is fit to be applied inside, to the base of the altar. But

with regard to

the law of

laundering, have you heard him

say that Rabbi Nehemiah considers the remnants of the blood to be the blood of a sin-offering?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, we find that Rabbi Nehemiah holds so even with regard to the law of laundering,