Zevachim 39a — the Talmud in English

And it is explicit in this beraita:

And was it not taught: the bloods

of a sin-offering

that require

pouring onto the

base,

that is, bloods that are the remainder of the blood of a sin-offering—if some of them splashed onto a garment, they are

subject to laundering.

And intention is effective with regard to them,

for if, at the time of pouring the blood onto the base, he intended to eat the flesh of the offering outside its time, this intention is effective to piggel the offering.

And one who offers some of them outside is liable.

But

in contrast,

bloods

that became disqualified,

which are poured into the channel

in the courtyard, and from there all the bloods go out to the Kidron Valley—if these bloods splashed onto the garment,

they are not

required to be

subject to laundering, and intention

of piggul

is not effective with regard to them

to piggel them,

and one who offers some of them outside is exempt.

The Gemara proves:

Whom do you hear saying

this law that

one who offers some of them

of the bloods requiring pouring onto the base,

outside is liable? —

It is Rabbi Neḥemya.

And if so, necessarily he also

says

that this blood is

subject to laundering.

And we object: Yet in this beraita it is stated that intention is effective with regard to them to piggel them; how is this possible?

And was it not taught: the remainder and the burning of the sacrificial portions are excluded

from the category of the sacrificial service, since

they

do not prevent atonement; therefore an intention is not effective with regard to them”?

do not prevent atonement, so that intention is not effective with regard to them?

Rather, necessarily you must say:

when that

beraita stating that intention is indeed effective was taught, it was not stated concerning the remainder of the blood, but

concerning the three presentations of the sin-offering

was it stated, and not concerning the remainder. If so, we have not heard at all from this beraita that the blood of the remainder is subject to laundering, and even according to Rabbi Neḥemya we have not found this law!?

And we object:

If so,

if you wish to establish, as you say, that the beraita deals with the blood of the three presentations, why were they called “bloods

that require the base”?

For these bloods

go to the horn

of the altar

and go,

not to the base!?

And we answer: Say

“they are destined for the base,”

that is, the mitzva of “being destined for the base” exists with regard to these bloods, concerning this: after the blood has been placed on the horns of the altar, its remainder is required to be poured onto the base.

But the Gemara rejects: Even if we establish the beraita as referring to the blood of the three presentations, it is still difficult:

But

since

is intention effective with regard to them? You said,

you, Rav Pappa, earlier, that those three presentations of the sin-offering

do not permit

the flesh and the sacrificial portions,

and the intention does not piggel them

at the time they are presented,

and they do not enter inside,

for they do not become disqualified by being brought inside; for with these three matters they are

like their end,

like the remainder of the blood!?

And therefore the Gemara retracts and says: The beraita did not speak concerning the three presentations of the sin-offering, which do not piggel,

but when that was taught, it was concerning

the remainder of

the inner bloods.

Since the beraita follows the view that says that pouring the remainder of the inner bloods prevents [atonement], these remainders are considered capable of piggul, of making one liable on account of offering outside, and of requiring laundering.

And we object: How is it possible to say that the beraita speaks of the remainder of the inner bloods, and to say that specifically for the inner bloods one is liable for offering their remainders outside the courtyard,

but with

the offering of the remainders of

the outer bloods

outside the courtyard

what is the law? He is exempt.

But if so, it is difficult:

rather than teaching

in the beraita to distinguish in three laws [laundering, piggul, and offering outside] between bloods poured onto the base and

bloods poured into the channel,

which are not subject to laundering, in which there is no intention of piggul, and for offering which outside one is exempt,

let it distinguish and teach within that matter,

with the remainder of the blood requiring the base itself, and say:

In what case is this statement said,

that one is liable for offering the remainder of the blood outside the courtyard?

With the inner bloods. But with the outer bloods he is exempt

for offering their remainders outside!?

And we answer:

This

this beraita

whose [opinion] is it? —

It is Rabbi Neḥemya, who says that even

that even

the remainder of the blood

placed on the outer altar

if he offered it outside, he is liable.

And since

according to him there is no distinction between outer and inner bloods with regard to the law of offering outside,

he does not teach three exemptions,

he cannot state three exemptions with regard to the outer bloods, distinguishing between them

alongside three liabilities

together with the three liabilities stated concerning the inner bloods. For indeed, one can distinguish between the outer and inner bloods with regard to laundering and piggul, but with regard to offering outside they are not distinct.

Ravina said,

to resolve what was difficult above concerning Rav Pappa’s inference from the Mishna: what is stated in the Mishna, “if it splashed from the horn, it is not subject to laundering,” means that it splashed

from the horn itself,

and Rav Pappa inferred from this that if it splashed from that which is destined for the horn, such as the blood of the three presentations, it is subject to laundering. However, what is stated there, “if it splashed

from the base,

it is not subject to laundering,” means that it splashed

from that which is destined for the base,

and the Mishna comes to teach us that from the moment the sprinkling has ended, the remainders are not subject to laundering. The Mishna did not need to innovate that if it splashed from the base itself it is not subject to laundering, since it already said that if it splashed from the horn it is not subject to laundering, and certainly [this is so] of the base.

Rav Taḥlifa bar Gaza said to Ravina:

According to you, that which is stated in the Mishna, “from the base,” means from that which is destined for the base,

say that both this and that are [blood] destined [for it],

and even that which is stated, “from the horn,” means from that which is destined for the horn, namely, the blood of the three presentations, and the Mishna teaches that even this blood is not subject to laundering!?

And we answer:

What is this?

How will you establish the Mishna as referring to that which is destined for the horn and say that it is not subject to laundering? For then it will be difficult for you: why did the Mishna need to state this law also concerning blood destined for the base?

Now,

according to you, even blood

destined for the horn you have said is not

subject to laundering; blood that is only

destined for the base, is it necessary

for the tanna to say that it is not subject to laundering!?

Rather,

necessarily one must say as we said, that

“from the horn”

is blood

from the horn itself.

And Rav Pappa inferred from this that blood destined for the horn, whose blood presentations have not yet been completed, is subject to laundering. However,

“from the base”

is

from that which is destined for the base,

for the remainders are not subject to laundering, and concerning the base itself it goes without saying that it is not subject to laundering.

We learned in the Mishna:

All those [bloods] presented on the inner altar

if he omitted one of all the presentations, it is as though he did not effect atonement.

The Sages taught:

In the passage of the bull for an unwitting communal matter [Leviticus 4], all its blood presentations are first stated. Afterwards, Scripture says

“And he shall do

for the bull [the sin-offering, brought for an unwitting communal matter]

as he did

for the sin-offering [as the anointed High Priest does with his sin-offering bull, when he brings it for a sin that he committed upon his own instruction].” And since all the sprinklings of the bull for an unwitting matter have already been explained, one must consider: what does this verse come to say, “And he shall do to the bull as he did to the sin-offering bull”?

Indeed, the Torah did not explain what he should do with the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys of the bull for an unwitting matter, and this must be learned from the bull of the anointed priest mentioned above. But it is impossible to say that this verse was stated concerning the burning of the sacrificial portions, since it says in it, “and the priest shall effect atonement for them,” whereas the sacrificial portions do not prevent atonement; only the sprinkling of the blood does.

Rather, the verse came

to repeat

its words

with regard to its sprinkling, and it taught

that if

in presenting the blood of the bull for an unwitting matter

he omitted one of all the presentations, he has done nothing.

For it is impossible to explain the verse as saying that he should do to this bull as he did to another bull, since Scripture did not omit any matter that we would need to learn from the bull of the anointed priest. Rather, necessarily “as he did” must be explained as “as I have written to you concerning all its procedures,” and Scripture repeated them to make them indispensable.

I have [a tradition]

to learn that one of all the presentations is indispensable

only

with regard to

the presentation of seven

sprinklings opposite the curtain.

For

these

are indispensable everywhere

where a presentation of seven is required. But

the presentation of four

horns,

from where

[do we know] that each one of them is indispensable in it, since concerning the outer sin-offering we learned that not all of them are indispensable!?

Scripture says

in the continuation of the verse

“So shall he do

to it”: it returned and repeated the law of its performance. And if it is not relevant to the presentation of seven, apply it to the presentation of four.

And now the Gemara expounds the entire verse:

“To the bull”: this is the bull of the Day of Atonement.

And the Torah comes to equate it with the bull for an unwitting matter.