Zevachim 52a — the Talmud in English

that the remnants of the external blood should be given inside,

that he should give the remnants of the external blood inside

, and

just as we find that the bloods

of the inside

their remnants are given

to the outside?!

It is impossible to say this, for there cannot be a hava amina that just as those given inside have their remnants poured onto the yesod outside, so those given outside have their remnants poured inside.

For, behold, there is no yesod for the

altar

itself,

and it is impossible to pour onto it the remnants of the blood of the offerings whose blood is given on the external altar. And necessarily, the verse’s mention of “the elevation-offering” is superfluous, to teach us the very law of pouring the remnants of all offerings onto the yesod of the external altar; and this is: “Give a yesod to the altar of the elevation-offering.”

And now the Gemara returns to explain the words of the beraita:

“Or perhaps it is only the altar of the elevation-offering that shall have a yesod.”

And we object: How could it have been expounded regarding the beginning of the blood-giving in all offerings that it must be opposite the yesod?

Is it written, “to the yesod of the elevation-offering”?

But

“to the yesod of the altar of the elevation-offering” is written!

Granted, if it refers to the pouring of the remnants, it is understandable that “the altar of the elevation-offering” is written, for the law of the remnants in all offerings whose blood begins on the external altar is that they be given on the yesod of the altar of the elevation-offering. But if it refers to the beginning of the blood-giving, it is impossible to say this, for the blood of a sin-offering is given on all four horns, even on the horn beneath which there is no yesod. And necessarily it was said only concerning an elevation-offering, and it should have written, “to the yesod of the elevation-offering,” and not “the altar of the elevation-offering”?!

And we answer:

If it had been written, “to the yesod of the elevation-offering,” I would have said

that he should cast the beginning of the blood

on the upright face of the yesod,

on the wall of the lower cubit, which rises from the ground up to the recess [for the yesod rises one cubit and recedes one cubit]].

Now that “to the yesod of the altar of the elevation-offering” is written,

it means

on the roof of the yesod,

on the roof of the yesod, which resembles an altar [the Tosafot explained that it is not specifically on the roof of the yesod, but rather on the entire height of the altar wall, up to the sikra line, it 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 elevation-offering that shall have a yesod,” refers to the beginning of the giving of the blood, which shall be only on a horn beneath which there is a yesod, we explain the dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva:

Rabbi Ishmael said: The roof of the yesod—why do I need

a verse for it? Behold,

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

pouring onto

the roof of the yesod, the beginning of an elevation-offering, which effects atonement,

does it not follow that it requires the roof of the yesod,

so that the beginning of its blood shall be opposite the yesod?!

Rabbi Akiva said: Just as the remnants of a sin-offering, which do not effect atonement and do not come for atonement, require the roof of the yesod, the beginning of an elevation-offering, which effects atonement and comes for atonement, does it not follow that it requires the roof of the yesod.

If so, what does the verse teach by saying, “to the yesod of the altar of the elevation-offering”—

Give a yesod to the altar of the elevation-offering!

We inquire about this:

What is the difference between them,

in what did Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree?

Rav Adda bar Ahava said:

If

the remnants prevent fulfillment, that is the difference between them. One master,

Rabbi Ishmael

holds that they prevent fulfillment,

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

And the other master,

Rabbi Akiva

holds that they do not prevent fulfillment,

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

Rav Pappa said:

Everyone agrees that

remnants do not prevent fulfillment. But here,

the remnants concerning which Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagreed are not the pouring of the remnants of all offerings; rather,

they disagree concerning the extracting

of the blood

of the bird sin-offering

that remained from its sprinkling, onto the yesod of the altar, whether the extracting

prevents fulfillment

or does not prevent fulfillment:

they disagree: One master,

Rabbi Ishmael

holds that it prevents fulfillment, and the other master,

Rabbi Akiva

holds that it does not prevent fulfillment.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Pappa:

for according to Rabbi Ishmael as well, the pouring of remnants does not prevent fulfillment. It is stated concerning the bull of the anointed priest:

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour

onto the yesod of the altar.”

What does “the bull” teach?

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

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

remnants of

blood to the yesod,

for the law of remnants was not specified concerning it,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Ishmael said [not to disagree, but to teach that remnants do not prevent fulfillment in 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

Lest you say that the pouring of the remnants of the bull of Yom Kippur prevents atonement because of the extra wording of the verse—for the verse did not need to include the pouring of the remnants for the bull of Yom Kippur, since there is

it is a kal va-chomer:

And it is:

Just as

the bull of the anointed priest,

whose blood does not enter inside

as

an obligation,

for he is not obligated to sin and bring a sin-offering, and nevertheless he

requires

the pouring of remnants onto

the yesod, one whose blood enters inside as an obligation,

that is, the bull of Yom Kippur, which is obligatory every year,

does it not follow that it requires

the pouring of remnants onto

the yesod

of the altar?!

Rabbi Akiva said:

One should add to your words: You said that the power of the bull of Yom Kippur is greater than that of the bull of the anointed priest, for this one is an obligation and that one is a mitzva; and one should reason even more strongly than this:

Just as

the bull of the anointed priest,

whose blood does not enter the innermost place, whether as an obligation or as a mitzva, requires a yesod—one whose blood enters the innermost place as an obligation, does it not follow that it requires a yesod?!

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

one might think that it prevents fulfillment

as though it repeated it in order to make it prevent fulfillment.

The verse teaches

in the passage of the service of Yom Kippur, after the completion of the services of the blood,

“And when he has finished atoning for the Sanctuary.”

And we expound:

All the atonements have been completed.

And this verse certainly speaks before the pouring of remnants, for no law of remnants is stated there at all,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

This is explicitly in accordance with Rav Pappa: according to Rabbi Ishmael, remnants do not prevent fulfillment in an animal sin-offering.

And the beraita continues: Since we have arrived at this kal va-chomer, one should likewise reason:

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

regarding the pouring of remnants, which did not need to be written concerning it, since the law of pouring could have been learned through a kal va-chomer:

Just as

the goat of the ruler,

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

for it is an external sin-offering, nevertheless it

requires a yesod. One whose blood enters inside, whether as an obligation or as a mitzva,

that is, the bull of the anointed priest [see Rashi’s explanation, which differs from what was said above, that the bull of the anointed priest is not an obligation]

does it not follow that it requires a yesod?!

And since it repeated it and wrote it,

one might think that it prevents fulfillment; the verse teaches

in 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 “the remnants of a mitzva,”

by this: the verse changed its wording and did not write “and he shall pour,” like what 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 equal to the other services; rather,

remnants do not prevent fulfillment.

We inquire about this:

And does Rabbi Ishmael hold that extracting the bird sin-offering prevents fulfillment?

And the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael:

It is stated concerning the bird sin-offering:

“And what remains of the blood he shall extract,”

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.