Zevachim 52b — the Talmud in English

And that which does not remain,

that is, if all the blood came out in the sprinkling,

he shall not perform the squeezing-out,

there is no need for squeezing-out. It follows that it does not invalidate!?

And we answer:

two tannaim

are those who disagreed

according to Rabbi Ishmael.

Rami bar Hama said: This tanna holds that the remainder invalidates

in the inner sin-offerings.

For it was taught:

it is stated concerning the animal sin-offering, “

The priest who effects atonement through it

shall eat it,” and we expound: only

“it”

the sin-offering

whose blood was placed above

in accordance with its law, upon the four corners of the altar—that one the priest shall eat,

but not that

sin-offering

whose blood was placed below

on the altar.

You have said: But from where did you come

to validate that which was placed not in accordance with its law, so that you need to bring a verse to invalidate it?

From that which was stated, “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out upon the altar,” we learn concerning those requiring four placements that if he placed them in one placement, he effected atonement

after the fact. For “shall be poured out” implies one pouring, and in that same verse it is stated, “and you shall eat the flesh.”

Perhaps even those requiring placement above, if he placed them below, he effected atonement

after the fact? For this reason we need to exclude it.

And it follows by logical inference

that it should be invalid if he placed it below, and a verse is not needed. For

blood is stated as being placed above

in the animal sin-offering,

and

in the bird sin-offering, whose blood is sprinkled on the wall of the altar below the scarlet line.

Just as with the blood stated as being placed below, if he placed it above he did not effect atonement,

as it was excluded by the verse, “It is a sin-offering,” that if he altered it, it is invalid,

so too with blood stated as being placed above, if he placed it below, he should not effect atonement!?

No,

they are not comparable:

If you say this concerning the lower ones, when he placed them in a placement above, for their end is not

to reach

above

if he had performed them in accordance with their law. Therefore

he did not effect atonement.

Can you say this concerning the upper ones, when he placed them below, for some of them are offered below,

since the remainder of the blood of the sin-offering is destined to be placed below, upon the base; therefore I would have thought that if he placed them below from the outset, they would effect atonement, and therefore we need to exclude it by a verse.

The inner blood will prove it, for some of it is offered outside,

for the remainder of the blood of the inner sin-offerings is poured onto the base of the outer altar,

and if he placed them outside from the outset, he did not effect atonement,

for concerning the inner ones a verse is written indicating invalidation.

So too, concerning the upper ones, when he placed them below, it follows that they should not effect atonement; and why do I need an exclusion?

No,

it is not comparable.

If you say this concerning the inner blood,

which is invalid if he placed it outside, for

the inner altar does not complete them,

since all the blood-placements that invalidate were not completed on it, but they still need to be placed in another place [and below it explains which place this is]; therefore they are more stringent.

Can you say this concerning the upper ones, for the corners

of the altar

complete them

since all the placements that invalidate were completed on it [for everyone agrees that the outer remainder does not invalidate]; therefore they are not stringent, and I might have said that if

he placed them below, they are valid; the verse therefore says “

“it,” to expound:

that whose blood was placed above, but not that whose blood was placed below [

up to here is the language of the beraita].

And Rami bar Hama analyzes:

What is the meaning of “the inner altar does not complete them,”

which is stated in the beraita? What further placement of blood that invalidates is there?

Is it not the remainder?

It follows that the tanna of this beraita holds that the remainder invalidates in the inner sin-offerings.

And we reject this:

Rava said to him

to Rami bar Hama:

If so,

if the tanna of the beraita holds that the remainder invalidates in the inner sin-offerings, what is the meaning of his answer that one cannot learn from the inner blood because the completion of its placements is not inside? On the contrary, all the more so one should learn from there,

for it should come by a kal va-chomer:

Just as with the inner remainder, whose placement outside is ultimately obligatory,

so that it invalidates, nevertheless if

he performed them outside from the outset [

if he placed the beginning of their blood outside]

he did not effect atonement.

Kal va-chomer

for those requiring placement above, whose placement below is not ultimately obligatory,

for the remainder does not invalidate in the outer offerings,

and if he performed them below from the outset, does it not follow that he did not effect atonement,

and it still remains difficult: why do I need a verse to exclude it?

Rather,

Rava concludes: this is the meaning of the beraita:

it is not only the inner altar that completes them, but also the curtain,

for the inner blood requires first a sprinkling upon the curtain, and since it requires two services for validity, therefore it is stringent and becomes invalid when he altered it and placed it outside. This is not so with those placed above, which require only one service for validity: placing blood upon the corners; I might therefore have said that if he placed them below, they are valid.

And in truth, the pouring of the inner remainder does not invalidate according to the tanna of the beraita, and Rami bar Hama’s proof is rejected.

The Sages taught:

it is stated concerning the bull of the Day of Atonement, “

And when he has completed atoning.”

And we expound:

if he effected atonement,

having made all the blood-placements,

he has completed it; and if he did not effect atonement, he has not completed it,

for all of them invalidate,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Judah said to him: Why should we not

expound according to the order of the verse, and

say: If he completed it, he effected atonement; if he did not complete it, he did not effect atonement,

to teach

that if he omitted one of all the placements, he has done nothing at all!

And we raise the question:

What is the difference between them,

in what did Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Judah disagree? And we answer: They disagree concerning this:

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi [disagree]: One says, the difference between them is the meaning of the expositions,

that is, how to expound from the verse. For Rabbi Judah does not find it implied that one should learn from “atoned” that all the placements invalidate, since perhaps it refers to one placement; rather, he learns from “completed,” which implies that he completed everything written in the passage. But the remainder, which is not written in the passage of the Day of Atonement, but is learned from the bull of the anointed priest, according to everyone does not invalidate.

And one says: the difference between them is whether the remainder invalidates.

Rabbi Akiva holds that it does not invalidate, for he expounds “atoned” as referring specifically to the services stated in the passage, while Rabbi Judah expounds “completed” as meaning that he completed all his services, so that even the remainder, which is learned from another place, invalidates.

And the Gemara says:

It can be established,

it can be proven

that it is Rabbi Joshua ben Levi who says that the remainder invalidates.

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: According to the one who says that the remainder invalidates,

if the blood was spilled after the inner placements and before the pouring of the remainder outside,

he brings another bull,

and slaughters it in order to pour the remainder from it, since they invalidate; and he does not begin outside, for if so they would not be remainder, but

he begins from the outset

with the placements upon the altar

inside,

and he pours the remainder outside.

It follows that according to Rabbi Joshua ben Levi there is a tanna who says that the remainder invalidates, and it is proven that he is the one who says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Judah disagree concerning this.

And we reject this:

Does Rabbi Yohanan not hold this reasoning,

that there is a tanna who says that the remainder invalidates?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Nehemiah taught

in his teaching that concerning the remainder, if he offered it outside, he is liable for karet on account of an outside sprinkling,

in accordance with the one who says that the remainder invalidates,

therefore it is a service, so that one is liable for it outside!?

Rather,

we are compelled to say that when Rabbi Yohanan said there that Rabbi Nehemiah is

“in accordance with the one who says

that the remainder invalidates,” his intention is to a tanna who taught this elsewhere,

and not to these tannaim

above [Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Judah].

And if so,

here too

it is possible to say the opposite: Rabbi Yohanan is the one who says, “the difference between them is whether the remainder invalidates.” And Rabbi Joshua ben Levi holds that according to everyone the remainder does not invalidate; and what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said,

“according to the one who says

that the remainder invalidates,” refers to an ordinary tanna,

and not to these tannaim.

And according to him, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Judah differ in the meaning of the expositions, and according to both of them the remainder does not invalidate; and it is another tanna who holds that the remainder invalidates.

Mishna:

The communal sin-offerings

the external ones, whose law was not explained in the preceding Mishna [which dealt only with the inner sin-offerings],

and

sin-offering

of an individual

their law is as explained below.

And by way of an incidental explanation, the Mishna explains:

These are the communal sin-offerings

the external ones:

the goats

of the additional-offering of

the New Moons, and

the goats of the additional-offerings

of the appointed times.

These communal sin-offerings and the sin-offerings of an individual—

their slaughtering is in the north, and the receiving of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires four placements

separate placements, which the priest places with his finger

upon the four corners

of the altar.

How

is the order of their blood-placements?