Zevachim 92b — the Talmud in English

And the reception

of its blood is in a

vessel [unlike a bird, in which there is no reception of blood].

and

its blood is placed on the

corner

of the altar above, and it is placed

with the finger, and on its point

of the corner it is placed.

And none of all these apply to a bird, for its blood was sprinkled on the wall of the altar, below its midpoint, and it is not placed with the finger and does not require the point of the corner.

Likewise, the internal sin-offering resembles the external one with regard to the law of

fire-offerings,

for the fats of the internal sin-offering and of the external sin-offering are offered upon the fire on the altar, unlike the bird sin-offering, none of which is burned upon the fire; rather, all its flesh is eaten by the priests.

And we raise an objection:

On the contrary, the bird sin-offering should have been included, since

it is equal to the external sin-offering in that the placing of its blood is

outside

the Sanctuary,

like it,

the external sin-offering; and likewise it resembles it

with regard to the eating

of the flesh,

like it,

unlike the internal sin-offering, whose blood is placed in the Sanctuary and whose flesh is not eaten but burned?

And we resolve: Nevertheless,

these

matters in which the internal sin-offering is equal to the external one

are more numerous,

being more numerous than the two matters in which the bird sin-offering is equal to the external sin-offering.

Rav Yosef said:

The source for excluding the blood of a bird sin-offering from the obligation of laundering is here:

The verse says

in that passage concerning laundering, “The priest who effects atonement with it

shall eat it.”

And we expound from “shall eat it,” which is in the singular, to teach that the obligation of laundering the blood applies only

to this

sin-offering

and not to another!

And

among those that are eaten the verse excluded,

to tell you that the passage concerning laundering the garment from the blood of the sin-offering was not stated with regard to all the sin-offerings that are eaten; by this it excludes the bird sin-offering, which is a sin-offering that is eaten.

And we raise an objection: If the exclusion of the bird sin-offering is learned from “for this one, and not for another,”

then

the limitation from

“this”

that we learned in the beraita above to exclude the bird sin-offering,

why do I need it?

And we resolve:

Were it not for “this,” we would have said that “shall eat it”

was not intended as an exclusion, but only that it is

the ordinary manner of the verse.

For the entire passage is stated in the singular; therefore

it informs us

with “this” that “shall eat it” is an exclusion, and that the singular is specifically intended, and is not merely the ordinary manner of the verse.

Rabba said:

There is no difficulty as to why it was not said that “this” comes to exclude the internal sin-offerings, since the principal law of laundering was stated with regard to them,

for the verse says, “that is sprinkled,” with regard to

sin-offerings that are

“sprinkled” does the verse speak,

namely, the internal sin-offerings, whose blood is placed by “sprinkling.” On the contrary, it is the external ones, whose blood is not placed by sprinkling [but by placing it on the corners of the altar], that were included for laundering by “one law for all sin-offerings”!

And we object:

But we learned

in our Mishna:

“Even though the verse speaks only of those that are eaten,”

which shows that the tanna of our Mishna held that the principal verse is written concerning the external sin-offerings that are eaten, and that the internal ones were included from “the law.” This is difficult for Rabba: how can he say that “that is sprinkled” reveals that the verse speaks of the internal ones that are sprinkled!?

And we resolve: The tanna of our Mishna

is saying this: “Even though the verse speaks only of those that are eaten”—that applies to the matter of scouring and rinsing

that is written in that passage, which is stated specifically with regard to the sin-offerings that are eaten [for immediately adjacent to it is written, “Every male among the priests shall eat it”].

But with regard to laundering,

both those that are eaten and the internal ones are included, and the internal ones are those learned from the principal verse, because

“that is sprinkled” is written,

whereas the external ones are those included by “one law for all sin-offerings.”

And we object:

If so,

that the internal ones are the principal subject of the verse, why does the Mishna teach

“both those that are eaten and both the internal ones,”

which implies that those that are eaten are the subject of the verse, while the internal ones are learned from an inclusion? Is it not, according to your words, that the internal ones are explicit in the verse, that

“both the internal ones and both those that are eaten” should have been needed by it

for the tanna to state, since the verse speaks of the internal ones and the external ones are learned from an inclusion!?

And we resolve: Indeed,

teach

in the Mishna:

“Both the internal ones and both those that are eaten”!

And we raise an objection:

If so,

that the verse deals with the internal sin-offerings that are sprinkled,

the bird sin-offering as well

should require laundering, for the placing of its blood is also called sprinkling?

And we resolve:

The Merciful One excluded

the bird sin-offering by

“this.”

And we raise an objection:

If so, the external one as well shall not

require laundering, since we exclude it by “this”?

And we resolve:

The Merciful One included

the external one from

“the law

of the sin-offering.”

And we raise an objection:

What did you see

that led you to include the external one from “the law” and exclude the bird from “this”? Say the reverse: let us exclude the external one and include the bird?

And we resolve:

It is logical that the external animal sin-offering

should be

included. For

it resembles the internal one in the following matters:

animal, slaughter, north, and reception in a vessel, and corner, finger, point, and fire-offerings.

And we object:

On the contrary! The bird sin-offering should have been included, since

it resembles the internal one in that it is performed

by sprinkling like it?

And we resolve: Nevertheless,

these

matters of the external one, the things in which it resembles the internal one,

are more numerous,

being more numerous than those of the bird.

In the case of an external animal sin-offering, if one brought its blood into the Sanctuary before sprinkling, intending to sprinkle it there for atonement, the offering becomes invalid. This applies specifically if the blood entered after it had been received in a service vessel. But if one brought in the animal itself after slaughter, while the blood was in its neck, it does not become invalid through this—

Rabbi Avin inquired: A bird sin-offering whose blood one brought in

while it was still

in its neck

after pinching and before sprinkling,

inside

the Sanctuary,

what is

the law as to whether it becomes invalid?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Is

its neck

of the bird sin-offering

considered like a service vessel,

since the blood of a bird sin-offering is not received in a service vessel, and it might be said that its neck, upon which the blood flows, is considered its vessel,

and it becomes invalid

the blood that is in its neck when it is brought inside, as though he brought the blood in a vessel into the Sanctuary?

Or perhaps

the neck of the bird sin-offering is

considered like the neck of an animal

and it does not become invalid by bringing its blood inside while it is on its neck, because “Any sin-offering of which some of its blood is brought”

the Merciful One said, and not

one who brought in the blood together with its

flesh?

Come and hear: It fluttered

the bird sin-offering after slaughter,

and entered inside, and returned

outside,

it is valid.

And the Gemara infers: Its blood was not received in a cup, and nevertheless the reason that if it entered it is valid is only because it entered by itself; and you can infer:

but if he brought it in, it is invalid [for it becomes invalid only if they brought it in with the intention of atoning, as it is written, “to effect atonement in the holy place”].

as it becomes disqualified only when it is brought in for atonement, as it is written: “to effect atonement in the sacred place”].

And it is proved that if a person brings in a bird sin-offering while its blood is in its neck, it is invalid.

And we reject this:

And according to your reasoning,

that you inferred this,

with regard to most sacred offerings, where it teaches: It fluttered

the animal after it had been slaughtered according to its law in the north,

and went out to the south, and returned

to the north,

it is valid,

and would you also infer there and say:

but if he took it out

to the south,

it is invalid!?

But there is no invalidity of “going out” within the courtyard, by going out from the north of the courtyard to its south.

Rather,

necessarily,

this

reason that it teaches “it fluttered and went out [by itself]” and does not teach “he took it out” is because of the other law stated there, which teaches there:

“It went outside

the courtyard and returned, it is invalid,” and therefore

it was necessary for it

to inform us that even if it went out by itself it is invalid; consequently it teaches “it fluttered” and not “he took it out.”

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the bird sin-offering, the reason that it teaches “it fluttered” is because of the second law, that

“it went outside”

which is also taught in that passage concerning the bird sin-offering,

it was necessary for it.

But in fact, if he himself brought it inside it is valid, because blood in its neck is considered like the neck of an animal.

Rabbi Avin raised a question: With regard to a bird sin-offering whose blood was spilled onto the floor, and he gathered it, what is the ruling?

Is it fit for sprinkling upon the altar or not?

And the sides of the doubt are:

Do we say

that the Merciful One simply did not require

a service vessel

for a bird sin-offering,

but the blood that emerged into its neck is considered as though it had been received in a service vessel;

and therefore, he gathers it

from the floor,

and it is fit

for sprinkling, as with an animal-offering in which the blood was spilled from the vessel, after it had been received in it, onto the floor, and he gathered it, in which case it is fit.

Or perhaps, the Merciful One disqualified a service vessel in its regard,

and all the more so a floor disqualifies it, because he must sprinkle directly from the bird itself onto the altar;

and therefore,

if the blood was spilled, and he

gathers it

from the floor, it is

disqualified

for sprinkling?

Rava said: Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

Could it be that the blood of a bird sin-offering requires laundering?

The verse states: “This,”

to exclude it.

And Rava infers:

And if it enters your mind that the Merciful One disqualified a service vessel in its regard,

because the blood must reach directly from the neck of the bird sin-offering to the altar, why do I need the exclusion of “this”? After all,

let it emerge

that it does not require laundering

because it has already been disqualified

immediately

in the airspace of a vessel,

that is, in the airspace of the garment, before it even touched it, because “the airspace of a vessel is like the vessel,” and the blood found in the airspace of the garment is like blood spilled into a vessel, which is no longer fit for sprinkling; and surely it does not require laundering.

Necessarily, if the blood was spilled, it does not disqualify in the case of a bird sin-offering.

And we reject this:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

What are we dealing with here?

With a vessel placed against

the garment

at its neck 9 .

The blood was not in the airspace of the garment; rather, it touched it immediately. Therefore, the blood was not disqualified under the law of “spilling” before it was absorbed into the garment, and for this the exclusion of “this” is needed. For without the exclusion of “this,” it would have required laundering.

Therefore, one cannot prove from here that spilling does not disqualify in the case of a bird sin-offering.

Levi asked Rabbi: If blood splashed

of an animal sin-offering

from one garment to another, what is the ruling?

Does the second garment require laundering? Do we say:

From the first garment it was rejected

the blood from the category of sprinkling

to laundering,

since it requires laundering, and after laundering it is not fit for sprinkling? Therefore, the second garment does not require laundering.

Or perhaps it is no different,

because blood that requires laundering is still considered fit for sprinkling.

He said to him: This is a question!

You have asked well, and I shall answer you:

It requires laundering!

For

in any event: If

we say

he gathers

the blood from the first garment

and it is fit

for sprinkling, since it has not been nullified from the category of blood as long as it has not been laundered,

then it is fit,

and the latter garment requires laundering.

And if

you should conclude

that he gathers it, and it is disqualified

for sprinkling.

In any event, it requires laundering.

For I hold in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who says: It had a time when it was fit

for casting,

and it became disqualified—its blood requires laundering.

And here, after all, it had a time when it was fit before it became disqualified through its falling onto the first garment.