Zevachim 92b (צב:) — the Talmud in English

And the receipt

of its blood is in a

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

and

its blood is placed on the

horn

of the altar above, and it is placed

with a finger, and on the tip

of the horn.

None of these procedures applies to a bird, whose blood was sprinkled on the wall of the altar below its midpoint; it is not placed with a finger and does not require the tip of the horn.

The internal sin-offering likewise resembles the external one with regard to the law of

fire-offerings,

since the sacrificial portions of both the internal and external sin-offerings are burned on the fire upon the altar, unlike a bird sin-offering, from which nothing is burned on the fire; rather, all its flesh is eaten by the priests.

And we raise a difficulty:

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

it resembles an external sin-offering in that the placing of its blood is

outside

the Sanctuary,

like it,

and it likewise resembles it in the

eating

of the flesh,

like it,

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

And we answer: Nevertheless,

these

matters in which an internal sin-offering resembles an external one

are more numerous,

more numerous than the two matters in which a bird sin-offering resembles an external sin-offering.

Rav Yosef said:

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

The verse states

in the passage concerning laundering: “The priest who effects its expiation

shall eat it.”

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

to this

sin-offering

and not to another!

And

among those that are eaten the verse excluded,

teaching you that the passage concerning laundering the garment from the blood of the sin-offering was not stated for every sin-offering that is eaten; it excludes a bird sin-offering, which is a sin-offering that is eaten.

And we raise a difficulty: If the exclusion of a bird sin-offering is derived from “to this and not to another,”

then

the exclusion from

“this”

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

why do I need it?

And we answer:

Had “this” not been stated, I would have said that “shall eat it”

was not stated as an exclusion, but rather that it is simply

the ordinary style of the verse.

The entire passage is phrased in the singular; therefore,

it teaches us

“this,” to reveal that “shall eat it” is an exclusion and that the singular wording is specifically intended, rather than merely the ordinary style of the verse.

Rabba said:

There is no basis for asking why “this” was not stated to exclude internal sin-offerings, because the primary law of laundering is stated with regard to them,

as the verse says, “whatever is sprinkled,” concerning

sin-offerings in which

“sprinkling” is performed, the verse speaks;

that is, internal sin-offerings, whose blood is placed by sprinkling. On the contrary, external sin-offerings, whose blood is not placed by sprinkling [but by placement on the altar’s horns], are those included in the law of laundering by means of “one law for all sin-offerings”!

We ask:

But didn’t we learn

in our Mishna:

Although the verse speaks only of those that are eaten,

which indicates that the tanna of the Mishna holds that the primary verse is written concerning external sin-offerings that are eaten, while internal sin-offerings are included by means of “the law”? This is a difficulty for Rabba: How can he say that “whatever is sprinkled” reveals that the verse speaks of internal sin-offerings, for which sprinkling is performed!?

And we answer: The tanna of the Mishna

said as follows: Although the verse speaks only of those that are eaten, that statement applies to the matter of rinsing and scouring

of the vessel, which is written in that passage and is stated specifically with regard to sin-offerings that are eaten [as immediately afterward it is written: “Every male among the priests shall eat of it”].

But with regard to laundering,

both those that are eaten and internal sin-offerings are included, and the internal sin-offerings are those derived from the primary verse, because

“whatever is sprinkled” is written,

while the external sin-offerings are those included by means of “one law for all sin-offerings.”

We ask:

If so,

that internal sin-offerings are the primary subject of the verse, why does the Mishna state

“

both those that are eaten and the internal ones,”

which implies that those that are eaten are the ones signified by the verse, while the internal ones are learned from an inclusion? According to your words, since internal sin-offerings are explicitly addressed by the verse,

it should have been necessary for the tanna to say, ‘both the internal ones and those that are eaten,’

since the verse speaks of the internal ones and the external ones are learned from an inclusion!

And we answer: Indeed,

teach

in the Mishna: “

Both the internal ones and those that are eaten!”

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

that the verse speaks of internal sin-offerings for which sprinkling is performed,

a bird sin-offering as well should require laundering, since the placement of its blood is also called sprinkling?

And we answer: The Merciful One

excluded

the bird sin-offering by means of

“this.”

And we raise a difficulty:

If so, an external sin-offering should not either

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

And we answer: The Merciful One

included

the external sin-offering by means of

“the law

of the sin-offering.”

And we raise a difficulty:

What have you seen

that led you to include an external sin-offering by means of “the law” and exclude a bird sin-offering by means of “this”? Say the opposite: exclude an external sin-offering and include a bird sin-offering.

And we answer:

It is logical that an external animal sin-offering

should be

included. Since

it resembles an internal sin-offering in the following matters:

animal, slaughter, the north, and receipt in a vessel, and the horn, finger, tip, and fire-offerings.

We ask:

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

it resembles an internal sin-offering in that it is performed

through sprinkling, like it?

And we answer: Nevertheless,

these

matters in which the external sin-offering resembles the internal one

are more numerous;

there are more of them than in the case 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 disqualified. This applies specifically if the blood entered after it had been received in a service vessel. But if one brought the animal itself in after slaughter, while the blood was still in its neck, this does not disqualify it—

Rabbi Avin raised a dilemma: A bird sin-offering whose blood one brought

while it was still

in its neck

after melika and before sprinkling,

inside

the Sanctuary,

what is

the law as to whether it becomes disqualified?

The sides of the dilemma are:

Does

its neck,

the neck of the bird sin-offering,

have the status of a service vessel,

since the blood of a bird sin-offering is not received in a service vessel, and one might say that its neck, over which the blood flows and which serves as its vessel, is considered a service vessel,

and the blood becomes disqualified

when its neck is brought inside, as though one had brought the blood in a vessel into the Sanctuary?

Or perhaps

the neck of the bird sin-offering

has the status of the neck of an animal,

and it is not disqualified when its blood is brought inside while it is on its neck, because the Merciful One states: “Any sin-offering whose blood is brought”

“from its blood,” and not

blood brought together with

its flesh?

Come and hear: It struggled

after the bird sin-offering was slaughtered,

and entered inside, and returned

outside,

it is valid.

The Gemara infers: Its blood had not been received in a cup, and nevertheless the reason that it is valid if it entered is only that it entered on its own. One may infer:

But if he brought it in, it is disqualified

[since it is disqualified only if it was brought in with the intention of effecting atonement, as it is written: “To effect atonement in the Sanctuary”].

This proves that if a person brought a bird sin-offering inside while its blood was in its neck, it is disqualified.

We reject this:

And according to your reasoning,

that you inferred this,

with regard to sacrificial offerings of the most sacred order, where it is taught: It struggled

after the animal had been slaughtered in accordance with its law in the north,

and went out to the south, and returned

to the north,

it is valid,

will you also infer there and say:

But if he took it out

to the south,

it is disqualified!?

Yet there is no disqualification of “leaving” within the courtyard when it goes from the northern part of the courtyard to its southern part.

Rather,

it must be that

this

that it teaches, “It struggled and went out [on its own],” and does not teach, “he took it out,” is because of the other law stated there, where it teaches: “It

went outside

the courtyard and returned—it is disqualified.” Therefore,

it was necessary for it

to teach us that even if it went out on its own it is disqualified; consequently it teaches “it struggled” rather than “he took it out.”

And if so,

here too,

in the case of the bird sin-offering, the reason it teaches “it struggled” is because of the second law, that it

“went outside,”

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

it was necessary for it

to teach this. In fact, if he brought it inside, it is valid, because blood in its neck has the status of blood in an animal’s neck.

Rabbi Avin raised a question: In the case of the bird sin-offering whose blood spilled onto the floor, and one collected it, what is the law?

Is it valid for sprinkling on the altar, or not?

The sides of the uncertainty are:

Do we say

that the Torah merely did not require

a bird sin-offering to have a

service vessel,

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

and therefore, one collects it

from the floor

and it is valid

for sprinkling, just as in the case of an animal offering whose blood spilled from the vessel, after having been received in it, onto the floor, and one collected it, in which case it is valid?

Or perhaps, the Torah disqualifies the use of a service vessel in its case,

and certainly the floor disqualifies it as well, because the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird itself onto the altar;

and therefore,

if the blood spilled and one

collected it

from the floor, it is

invalid

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.

Rava infers:

And if it enters your mind that the Torah disqualifies the use of a service vessel in its case,

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

It could be inferred

that it does not require laundering,

since it has already become disqualified

immediately

in the airspace of the vessel,

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

Necessarily, then, spilled blood does not disqualify a bird sin-offering.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:

What are we dealing with here?

With a vessel attached

to the garment

to its neck 9 .

The blood was not in the airspace above the garment; rather, it touched it immediately. Therefore, the blood was not disqualified by the law of “spilled blood” before it was absorbed into the garment, and for this reason the exclusion of “this” is necessary. Without the exclusion of “this,” it would have required laundering.

Therefore, one cannot prove from here that spilled blood does not disqualify a bird sin-offering.

Levi asked Rabbi: If blood

of an animal sin-offering

splashed from one garment onto another, what is the law?

Does the second garment require laundering? Do we say:

From the first garment it was removed

from the status of blood fit for sprinkling

to laundering,

since it requires laundering, and after laundering it is no longer 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: That is a question!

You have asked well, and I will answer you:

It requires laundering!

For

in either case: If

we say that one

collects

the blood from the first garment

and it is valid

for sprinkling, since it does not lose the status of blood so long as it has not been laundered,

then it is valid,

and the second garment requires laundering.

And if

you might say that one

collects it, but it is invalid

for sprinkling.

In any event, it requires laundering.

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

for sprinkling,

and became disqualified, its blood requires laundering.

And here, it had a time when it was fit, before it became disqualified when it fell onto the first garment.