Zevachim 38b (לח:) — the Talmud in English

What, is it not

that he sprinkled on the wall of the Golden Altar

halfway up the altar,

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

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

That is, noon, which is half the day. And “purify it” with regard to the altar likewise means half the altar. But when he places the blood halfway up the altar, it is impossible to be exact, so that some of the blood will be above and some below , we have found blood half of which is above and half below !?

And we answer:

Rava bar Sheila said: No,

he sprinkled not on half the altar, but

on its exposed surface

, that is, its roof. And the verse means to say that after he had purified it from the ashes upon it and exposed its roof, he sprinkled the blood there. Therefore it is called “its purification,” because he purifies and beautifies it, as

it is written

in the verse:

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

[Exodus 24].

The Gemara continues and raises an objection:

But there are the remainder

of the blood, whose primary 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 placement of the

remainder does not invalidate

the atonement. And what we said—that we have not found blood whose half is given above and half below—refers to the placement of blood that does invalidate the atonement .

And we raise another objection:

But there is the remainder

of the

inner

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

as there is one who says

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

is disqualifying !?

And we answer:

In one place

only—that is, on one altar—

is what we are saying

: We have not found blood half of which is given above and half 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

with regard to the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel:

Beit Shammai say: Two gifts that

are given on the horns of the altar

in

a

sin-offering, and one gift that

is given

in

each of

all the offerings,

these

render permitted

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

And

likewise,

the two gifts in a sin-offering render

the offering piggul. That is, the offering becomes piggul only if he entertained a piggul intention while giving both of them. But if he entertained the piggul intention with regard to only one of them, and remained silent and had no such thought with regard to the second, the offering does not become piggul, because “one cannot render piggul with half of that which permits,” and the giving of the two gifts together is the “that which permits,” whereas the giving of one is only “half of that which permits”

. Whereas

Beit Hillel say:

One

gift in a sin-offering and

one gift

in all the offerings,

this

renders permitted

the sacrificial portions of the offering and its meat,

and renders it piggul

if he entertained a piggul intention while giving it.

Rav Oshaya raised an objection

to the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

If so,

as you say—that according to Beit Shammai the offering becomes piggul only if he entertained the intention while giving both gifts, whereas according to Beit Hillel it becomes piggul even if he entertained the intention with regard to 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 the offering piggul, whereas according to Beit Hillel it does !?

And we answer:

Rava said

to Rav Oshaya:

When the matter was asked,

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

with

regard to

the permitting

of the sacrificial portions and the meat.

It was asked,

but not with regard to a piggul intention at one gift. The questioner stood and asked: If he gave one gift and the blood spilled, were the sacrificial portions and the meat permitted or were they not permitted? Beit Shammai ruled that the offering was disqualified, and Beit Hillel ruled that it was fit

, so Beit Shammai were stringent

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The three gifts

of the blood

of sin-offerings,

although they do not invalidate the atonement, and their giving is not as significant as the first gift, which effects atonement, nevertheless, if the three gifts were not given before sunset, the blood became disqualified at sunset, despite the fact that one gift had already been given, and he may not continue and give the remaining gifts. Therefore

they do not come

onto the altar

at night,

but they may be given after the death

of the owners of the offering. For if he gave the first gift and afterward the owner died, atonement had already been achieved through the first gift, and the blood no longer has the status of a “complete sin-offering”; therefore it is not disqualified as a sin-offering whose owners died.

And one who brings any of them

outside

the Temple courtyard

is liable.

Rav Pappa said:

These three final gifts

have some aspects

of the laws of blood for which their status is

like their beginning,

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

And they have some aspects

for which they are

like their end,

in which they have the status of “the remainder of the blood”:

Rav Pappa first states which matters have the status of 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 sprinkling.

b.

And

it is prohibited to give them at

night,

since they became disqualified for sprinkling at sunset.

c. And one is liable for them on account of

a non-koen,

for if a non-koen sprinkled them inside, he is liable to death.

d.

And

they require

a service vessel.

e. And they are given on the

horn.

f

f.

And

they must be given on the horns of the altar

with the finger.

g. If some of the blood spattered onto a garment after the first gift had been given, it requires

laundering,

as though it had spattered beforehand. But if some of the blood spattered onto the garment after all the blood-gifts had already been given, the garment does not require laundering, for we learned this from the verse, “Upon which it is sprinkled”—excluding that which had already been sprinkled.

8.

And

so they have the status of

“remnants.”

For if he received the blood of the sin-offering in four cups instead of in one cup, and performed one placement from each cup, the blood from the three cups that were placed after the first placement assumes the status of the remnants of the blood, and he pours it onto the base of the altar.

In all these details, the status of the blood of the last three placements is

like their beginning,

that is, like the status of the first placement.

On the other hand, there are matters whose status is like that of their end—

a. They are performed even after the

death

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

b. And

they do not render permitted,

as their sprinkling does not permit the meat and the sacrificial portions, since they were already permitted through the first placement. c.

Nor do they render the offering piggul.

For if he performed the first placement properly and thereafter entertained a thought of piggul while performing the remaining three placements, the offering does not become piggul.

d.

Nor does it enter inside.

The blood does not have the status of blood that becomes disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, for if he performed one placement in its proper place and then brought the remaining blood inside, the blood does not become disqualified on account of the sin-offering whose blood entered inside. For concerning this law it is stated: “And any sin-offering whose blood is brought inside to effect atonement in the Sanctuary,” and we learn from this that the verse speaks only of blood that is fit to effect atonement. This excludes this blood, which is not fit to effect atonement, since the owners have already achieved atonement through the first placement.

And with regard to all these laws, the status of this blood is

like its end,

like the remnants of the blood.

Rav Pappa said: From where do I say this?

From where did I learn to say that even after the first placement, if some of the blood of the sin-offering spattered onto a garment, the garment requires laundering?

As we learned

below, on 93a:

If

blood

from the neck

of the animal of a sin-offering

spattered onto a garment, it does not require laundering,

because we learn from the verse “that is sprinkled” [Leviticus 7] that only blood fit for sprinkling requires laundering. This excludes blood that spattered from the neck, since it was not received in a service vessel and is therefore unfit for sprinkling.

Similarly, if blood spattered onto a garment

from the horn,

after the blood had already been placed on the horn of the altar,

or from the base,

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

it does not require laundering.

This too is learned from the phrase “that is sprinkled,” excluding blood that had already been sprinkled.

Rav Pappa deduces: It is specifically when blood that is unfit to be placed on the horn has already spattered that it does not require laundering.

But

if it spattered

from

the blood

that is fit for the horn, it requires laundering!

And the blood designated for these three placements is also fit to be placed on the horn; therefore, if some of it spattered, the garment requires laundering.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa:

But according to your reasoning,

since you deduced, “But blood that is fit for the horn requires laundering,” the Mishna also states that if blood spattered

from the base, it does not require laundering,

so would you also deduce, according to your reasoning,

but

if it spattered

from

the blood

that is fit for the base,

that is, the remnants of the blood after all its placements have been performed,

the garment requires laundering!?

But

“that is sprinkled” is written

in the verse, and we derived from it:

excluding blood that had already been sprinkled!?

The Gemara concludes its objection and says: Rav Pappa cannot derive his principle from this Mishna, because it must necessarily be said:

Who is the tanna of this Mishna?

Who is the tanna who taught it?

Rabbi Neḥemya,

the only tanna who maintains that even the remaining blood, once it has the status of remnants, retains the laws of the blood of a sin-offering.

As we learned: Rabbi Neḥemya says: With regard to the remnants of the blood,

even those of external sin-offerings,

if one offers them outside, he is liable.

This is because, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, they retain the status of the blood of a sin-offering. According to his view, the same applies if some of the remnants spattered onto a garment: the garment requires laundering.

If so, Rav Pappa’s proof is rejected, since we do not hold in accordance with Rabbi Neḥemya.

But the Gemara rejects this and argues:

You may say that Rabbi Neḥemya is known to consider

the remnants to have the status of the blood of a sin-offering specifically

with regard to offering

them outside, and it is only for that reason that one is liable,

as is the case with the limbs and the fats,

for one is liable for offering them outside, since they are fit to be offered inside. The same applies to the remnants of the blood: one is liable for sprinkling them outside, since they are fit to be placed inside, on the base of the altar. But

with regard

to the law of

laundering, do you hear him say

that Rabbi Neḥemya considers the remnants of the blood to have the status of the blood of a sin-offering?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, we find that Rabbi Neḥemya holds this way even with regard to the law of laundering.