Zevachim 52a (נב.) — the Talmud in English

My statement refers to the inner applications:

that the remnants of the external blood should be given on the inner altar

, and

just as we find that the blood

of the inner applications

has its remnants given

outside?!

It is impossible to say this, because it is inconceivable that the initial assumption would be that just as the blood applied inside has its remnants poured onto the base outside, so too the blood applied outside would have its remnants poured inside.

For the

inner

altar itself has no base,

and it is therefore impossible to pour upon it the remnants of the blood of offerings whose blood is given on the external altar. And perforce, the verse “the burnt offering” is superfluous, to teach us the fundamental law that the remnants of all offerings are poured onto the base of the external altar. This is the meaning of: “Give a base to the altar of the burnt offering.”

The Gemara now returns to explain the statement of the beraita:

“Or perhaps it is only the altar of the burnt offering that shall have a base.”

And we raise an objection: How could one expound the verse as referring to the initial application of the blood of all offerings, that it must be opposite the base

? Is it written, ‘to the base of the burnt offering’

? But

it is written, ‘to the base of the altar of the burnt offering’!

Granted, if the verse is referring to the pouring of the remnants, it is understandable that “altar of the burnt offering” is written, since the law concerning the remnants of all offerings whose blood is initially applied on the external altar is that they are to be given on the base of the altar of the burnt offering. But if it is referring to the initial application of the blood, this cannot be said, since the blood of a sin offering is given on all four corners, including the corner beneath which there is no base. Perforce, the verse refers only to a burnt offering; and it should have written, “to the base of the burnt offering,” and not “to the altar of the burnt offering

”?! And we answer:

Had it been written, “to the base of the burnt offering,” I would have assumed

that the initial blood applications are to be cast

on the upright face of the base,

on the wall of the lower cubit, which rises from the ground to the point of the recess [the base rises one cubit and recedes one cubit].

Now that it is written, “to the base of the altar of the burnt offering,”

it indicates

on the top of the base,

on the top surface of the base, which resembles an altar [in Tosafot they explained that this does not specifically mean the top surface of the base; rather, the entire height of the altar wall, up to the red line, is valid].

And now, after it has been explained that what is taught in the beraita, “Or perhaps it is only the altar of the burnt offering that shall have a base,” refers to the initial application of the blood, which may be performed only at a corner beneath which there is a base, we explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva:

Rabbi Yishmael said: Why do I need a verse

for the top of the base, when

there is a kal va-chomer: Just as the remnants, which do not effect atonement, require

pouring onto the

top of the base, the initial blood application of a burnt offering, which effects atonement,

should it not follow that it requires the top of the base,

so that its initial blood application is opposite the base ?!

Rabbi Akiva said: Just as the remnants of a sin offering, which do not effect atonement and do not come to effect atonement, require the top of the base, should it not follow that the initial blood application of a burnt offering, which effects atonement and comes to effect atonement, requires the top of the base?

If so, what does the verse “to the base of the altar of the burnt offering” come to teach

? Give a base to the altar of the burnt offering!

We inquire concerning this:

What is the practical difference between them,

that is, in what did Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

If

the remnants invalidate the offering, that is the difference between them. One master,

Rabbi Yishmael,

holds that they invalidate it,

for he said only that they “do not effect atonement,” meaning that the remnants do not come to effect atonement, but they do invalidate the atonement of the offering.

And the other master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that they do not invalidate it,

for Rabbi Akiva added to Rabbi Yishmael’s words and said, “They do not effect atonement and do not come to effect atonement,” to teach us that atonement does not depend upon them.

Rav Pappa said:

Everyone agrees that

the remnants do not invalidate the offering. And here,

the remnants over which Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagreed do not concern the pouring of the remnants of all offerings. Rather,

they disagree concerning the extracting

of the

blood of a bird sin offering

that remained after its sprinkling, onto the base of the altar: whether the extraction

invalidates

or does not invalidate

—that is the issue over which they disagree: One master,

Rabbi Yishmael,

holds that it invalidates, and the other master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that it does not invalidate.

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa,

that according to Rabbi Yishmael as well, the pouring of the remnants does not invalidate the offering: It is stated concerning the bull of the anointed priest:

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour

onto the base of the altar.”

What does “the bull” come to teach

? The verse could have written, “And all the blood he shall pour.” Rather, here it

teaches concerning the bull of Yom Kippur that it requires the giving of the

remnants of the

blood at the base,

as the law of the remnants was not stated explicitly with regard to it,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Yishmael said [he did not come to disagree, but to teach that the remnants do not invalidate the bull of Yom Kippur]:

Perhaps you will say that the pouring of remnants of the bull of Yom Kippur prevents fulfillment because of the superfluity of the verse, for the verse was not needed to include the pouring of remnants for the bull of Yom Kippur, because

Perhaps you will say that the pouring of the remnants of the bull of Yom Kippur invalidates the offering because of the superfluity of the verse, since the verse was not needed to include the pouring of the remnants for the bull of Yom Kippur, for

there is a kal va-chomer

:

Just as

the bull of the anointed priest,

one whose blood does not enter inside

as

an obligation,

since there is no obligation upon him to sin and bring a sin offering, nevertheless it is

required

to have its remnants poured onto

the base. One whose blood enters inside as an obligation,

that is, the bull of Yom Kippur, which is an obligation every year,

should it not follow that it is required

to have its remnants poured onto the

base

of the altar?!

Rabbi Akiva said:

I must add to your argument. You said that the power of the bull of Yom Kippur is greater than that of the bull of the anointed priest, since the former is an obligation whereas the latter is a mitzva; but an even stronger argument may be made:

And

the bull of the anointed priest,

one whose blood does not enter into the innermost chamber, whether as an obligation or as a mitzva, requires a base. One whose blood enters into the innermost chamber as an obligation—should it not follow that it requires a base?!

And since it was not necessary to write the law of pouring the remnants of the blood of the bull of Yom Kippur, and it nevertheless wrote it,

one might have thought that it invalidates the offering,

as though the law had been repeated in order to make it invalidating.

The verse therefore states

in the section describing the Yom Kippur service, after the completion of the blood services:

“And when he has completed effecting atonement for the Sanctuary.”

And we expound:

All the atonements have been completed.

This verse certainly refers to the time before the pouring of the remnants, since no law of remnants was stated there at all,

the words of Rabbi Yishmael.

This is an explicit proof in accordance with Rav Pappa: according to Rabbi Yishmael, the remnants of an animal sin offering do not invalidate the offering.

The beraita continues: Since we have arrived at this kal va-chomer, one may likewise reason:

A kal va-chomer for the bull of the anointed priest from now on,

with regard to pouring the remnants, a law that did not need to be written concerning it, since the law of pouring could have been derived by means of a kal va-chomer:

And

the ruler’s goat,

one whose blood does not enter inside, neither as an obligation nor as a mitzva,

since it is an external sin offering, nevertheless it

requires a base. One whose blood enters inside, both as an obligation and as a mitzva,

that is, the bull of the anointed priest [see Rashi, who explains this differently from what was stated above, namely, that the bull of the anointed priest is not an obligation],

should it not follow that it requires a base?!

And since the verse repeated the matter and wrote it,

one might have thought that it invalidates the offering; the verse therefore states

concerning the remnants of the bull of the anointed priest:

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour”—the verse detached it

from the other services

and made it “a remnant of a mitzva,”

by changing its wording and not writing “and he shall pour,” as it wrote concerning the other services, such as “and he shall take” and “and he shall sprinkle,”

to tell you

that the pouring is not equivalent to the other services. Rather,

the remnants do not invalidate the offering.

We inquire concerning this:

Does Rabbi Yishmael hold that the extraction of the bird sin offering invalidates the offering?

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael:

It is stated concerning the bird sin offering:

“And the remainder of the blood shall be extracted,”

and we expound: Only the blood

that remains shall be extracted,

for if blood remains in the body of the bird, there is a mitzva to extract it,