Zevachim 52b (נב:) — the Talmud in English

And that which does not remain,

that is, if all the blood was expelled through the sprinkling,

he need not perform the extraction,

there is no need for extraction. It follows that it does not prevent the offering from being valid?

And we answer:

They are two tannaitic opinions

who disagreed

according to Rabbi Yishmael.

Rami bar Hama said: This tanna maintains that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid

in the case of inner sin offerings.

As it was taught:

With regard to an animal sin offering it is stated:

“The priest who effects its atonement

shall eat it,” and we derive: Only

“it”

the sin offering

whose blood was placed above

in accordance with its procedure, on 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 say: And from where did you derive

that blood placed contrary to its prescribed procedure is valid, such that you need to bring a verse to disqualify it

? From what is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar,” we learn that with regard to offerings whose blood requires four placements, if he placed it with one placement, he effected atonement

after the fact. For “shall be poured” indicates a single pouring, and in that same verse it is stated: “And you shall eat the flesh.”

One might have thought that even when blood that is supposed to be placed above was placed below, he effected atonement

after the fact. Therefore, we need to exclude it.

And it follows by logical inference

that it should be disqualified when he placed it below, and there is no need for a verse. For

blood is stated with regard to placement above

in an animal sin offering,

and blood is stated with regard to placement below

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

Just as with regard to the blood stated with regard to placement below, when he placed it above he did not effect atonement,

as it is excluded by the verse “It is a sin offering,” which teaches that if he altered its procedure it is disqualified,

so too, with regard to blood stated with regard to placement above, if he placed it below, he should not effect atonement!?

No,

they are not comparable:

If you say with regard to those designated for placement below, when he placed them above, that their end would not

be to reach

below

if he performed them according to their procedure, therefore

he did not effect atonement.

Can you say the same with regard to those designated for placement above, when he placed them below, since some of it is destined to be offered below,

as the remaining blood of the sin offering is destined to be poured below, on the base? Therefore, I would have thought that if he placed it below from the outset, it effects atonement; and therefore it is necessary to exclude this possibility by means of a verse.

The inner blood applications prove this point, since some of them are performed outside,

as the remaining blood of the inner sin offerings is poured on the base of the outer altar,

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

because a verse is written with regard to the inner offerings indicating that this prevents the offering from being valid.

And likewise, with regard to those designated for placement above, when he placed them below, it follows that they should not effect atonement; so why do I need an exclusion?

No,

they are not comparable.

If you say with regard to the inner blood applications

that they are disqualified if he placed them outside, since

the inner altar does not complete them,

as all the blood applications that prevent the offering from being valid have not been completed on it, but must still be placed elsewhere [and below the Gemara will explain which place this is], therefore they are more stringent.

Can you say the same with regard to those designated for placement above, since the corners

of the altar

complete them,

as all the applications that prevent the offering from being valid have been completed on it [since everyone agrees that the remaining blood of outer offerings does not prevent the offering from being valid]? Therefore, they are not as stringent, and I might have thought that if

he placed them below, they are valid. The verse therefore states

“it,” to teach:

The one whose blood was placed above, but not the one whose blood was placed below

[this concludes the wording of the beraita].

And Rami bar Hama infers:

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

as stated in the beraita? What further blood application that prevents the offering from being valid remains to be performed?

Is it not the remaining blood?

It follows that the tanna of this beraita maintains that the remaining blood prevents the inner sin offerings from being valid.

And we reject this:

Rava said to

Rami bar Hama:

If so,

if the tanna of the beraita maintains that the remaining blood prevents inner sin offerings from being valid, why did he respond that one cannot derive the law from the inner blood applications because the completion of the blood applications is not performed inside? On the contrary, all the more so should the matter be derived from there,

by means of a kal va-chomer:

If the remaining blood of the inner offerings, whose ultimate placement outside

is obligatory in order to prevent the offering from being valid, nevertheless, if

he performed it outside from the outset

[if he placed the blood outside at the outset],

he did not effect atonement.

A kal va-chomer

applies to those designated for placement above, whose ultimate placement below is not obligatory,

as the remaining blood does not prevent outer offerings from being valid:

if he performed it below from the outset, is it not logical that he did not effect atonement?

Why, then, is the verse still needed 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,

as the inner blood applications must first be sprinkled on the curtain. Since they require two services in order to prevent the offering from being valid, they are therefore stringent, and a change that consists of placing them outside disqualifies the offering. This is not so with regard to those designated for placement above, which require only one service in order to prevent the offering from being valid: placing the blood on the corners. I would therefore have thought that if he placed them below, they are valid.

And in all cases, the pouring of the remaining inner blood does not prevent the offering from being valid according to the tanna of the beraita, and Rami bar Hama’s proof is rejected.

The Sages taught:

With regard to the bull of Yom Kippur it is stated:

“And he shall complete the atonement.”

And we derive:

If he effected atonement,

having performed all the blood applications,

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

as all of them prevent the offering from being valid.

This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Why not

derive it 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 even one of all the blood applications, he has accomplished nothing!?

And we inquire:

What difference is there between them,

that is, what did Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about? And we answer: They disagreed about the following dispute between

Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: One says that the difference between them is the manner of expounding the meaning of the verses,

that is, how to derive the law from the verse. Rabbi Yehuda does not understand that “effected atonement” teaches that all the blood applications prevent the offering from being valid, as perhaps it refers to a single application; rather, he derives it from “completed,” which indicates that he completed everything stated in the passage. But with regard to the remaining blood, which is not written in the passage concerning Yom Kippur but is derived from the bull of the anointed priest, everyone agrees that it does not prevent the offering from being valid.

And one says that they disagree about whether the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid.

Rabbi Akiva maintains that the remaining blood does not prevent the offering from being valid, as he derives from “effected atonement” that specifically the services stated in the passage are included. Rabbi Yehuda derives from “completed” that he completed all his services, so that even the remaining blood, which is learned from elsewhere, prevents the offering from being valid.

And the Gemara says:

It can be determined

that it can be proven

that it is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid.

For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: According to the one who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid,

if the blood was spilled after the applications inside and before the pouring of the remaining blood outside,

he brings another bull,

and slaughters it in order to pour its remaining blood, since the remaining blood does prevent the offering from being valid. But he does not begin outside, for if so, it would not be remaining blood; rather,

he begins anew

with the applications on the altar

inside,

and pours the remaining blood outside.

It follows that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi has a tanna who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid, and it is proven that he is the one who says that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about this matter.

And we reject this:

Is that to say that Rabbi Yohanan does not accept this reasoning,

that there is a tanna who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid?

But Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Neḥemya taught

his Mishna in accordance with the opinion that if one offered the remaining blood outside, he is liable to receive karet for performing an external sprinkling,

in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid,

and therefore it is a service for which one incurs liability when performing it outside!?

Rather,

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

“in accordance with the opinion of the one

who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid,” his intention was to refer to a tanna who taught this elsewhere,

and not to these tannaim

above [Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda].

And if so,

here too

it can be said conversely, that it is Rabbi Yohanan who says: “They disagree about whether the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid.” And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that according to everyone the remaining blood does not prevent the offering from being valid. And when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said

“according to the opinion of the one

who says that the remaining blood prevents the offering from being valid,” he was referring to an unspecified tanna,

and not to these tannaim.

According to him, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree only about the manner of expounding the meaning of the verses, and according to both of them the remaining blood does not prevent the offering from being valid; it is another tanna who maintains that the remaining blood does prevent the offering from being valid.

Mishna:

The communal sin offerings

that are external, whose law was not explained in the previous Mishna [which dealt only with inner sin offerings],

and

the sin offering

of an individual

have the following law, as explained below.

And, parenthetically, the Mishna explains:

These are the communal sin offerings

that are external:

the goats

of the additional offerings of

the New Moons, and

the goats of the additional offerings

of the Festivals.

These communal sin offerings and individual sin offerings—

their slaughter is in the north, and their blood is received in a service vessel in the north, and their blood requires four applications

separately, which the priest places with his finger

on the four corners

of the altar.

How

is the order of their blood applications?