Parallel
זבחים 38
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
— There, subtract one text for the command itself, and one for the covering, so three are left. Then the [Mosaic] halachah comes and diminishes the third [wall], fixing it at a hand-breadth. If so, [when Scripture states] Then she shall be unclean two weeks [shebu'ayim], shib'im [seventy] [is actually written], then [argue,] the mikra and the masoreth are both effective, and so she should have to spend forty-two days [in uncleanness]? — There it is different, because it is written, as in her menstrual state. Now the Tanna [of the following Baraitha] adduces it [Beth Hillel's ruling] as follows: We-kipper [and he shall make atonement] is stated three times, on account of the analogy [which might otherwise be drawn]. But surely we have an analogy to this effect: blood is prescribed below [the red line], and blood is prescribed above: as with the blood which is prescribed below, if one made a single application, he effects atonement; so with the blood which is prescribed above, if one makes a single application, he makes atonement. Or you may reason in this direction: Blood is prescribed within, and blood is prescribed without: as in the case of blood prescribed within, if [the priest] omits a single application his action is ineffective; so in the case of the blood prescribed without, if he omits a single application his action is null. Then let us see to which it is comparable: You can draw an analogy between sacrifices offered on the outer altar, but you cannot draw an analogy between [sacrifices offered on] the outer altar and [those offered on] the inner altar. Or, you might argue to the contrary: You may draw an analogy between sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled on four horns [of the altar], and let not the outer altar prove it, which is not a sin-offering nor [is its blood sprinkled on the] four horns. Therefore Scripture states ‘we-kipper’ three times, on account of the analogy [which might otherwise be drawn], [teaching]: ‘and he shall make atonement’ even though he sprinkled [the blood] only three times; ‘and he shall make atonement’ even though he sprinkled [it] only twice; ‘and he shall make atonement’ even though he sprinkled it but once. But this is required for its own purpose? Said Raba b. Adda: Mari explained it to me: Scripture says, and he shall make atonement . . . and he shall be forgiven: atonement and forgiveness are identical. Yet say [that] ‘and he shall make atonement’ [intimates] even if he made only three applications above [the red line] and one below; and he shall make atonement’ even if he made only two applications above and two below; ‘and he shall make atonement even if he did not apply [the blood] above but only below? — Said R. Adda b. Isaac: If so, you annul the law of horns. But if the Divine Law has ordained [it so], let them be annulled? — Said Raba: What thing is it that requires three? Surely the horns. Yet say, ‘and he shall make atonement’ [teaches] even if he made only one application above and three below? — We do not find blood [applied] half above and half below. Do we not? Surely we learnt: He sprinkled thereof once above and seven below? — That was done as mazlif [one swinging a whip]. What is a mazlif? — Rab Judah showed it by imitating the movements of a whipper. [Again, we learnt:] He besprinkled the surface of the altar seven times.
—
Surely that means on the [upper] half of the altar, as people say, The noon-light shines, and so it is midday? Said Raba b. Shila, No: [it means] on the [altar's] top surface [cleared] from ashes, for it is written, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. But there is the remainder [of the blood]? — The [pouring out of] the remainder [at the altar's base] is not essential. But there is the remainder of inner sin-offerings, which, according to one view is essential? We mean in one and the same place. It was taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Beth Shammai maintain [that] two applications in the case of the sin-offering and one in the case of all [other] sacrifices permit [them for consumption] and may render them piggul; Beth Hillel rule: One application [only] in the case of a sin-offering and one in the case of all [other] sacrifices permit [them for consumption] and may render them piggul. To this R. Oshaia demurred: If so, this [controversy] should be recited among the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the stricter rulings of Beth Hillel? — Said Raba to him: When the question was [first] asked, it was whether [the sacrifice] was permitted, so that Beth Shammai were stricter. R. Johanan said: The three [final] applications of sin-offerings may not be made at night, and are made after [the owners’] death, while he who presents them without the Temple court is culpable. R. Papa said: In some respects [they are] as the first blood, while in others they are as the last: [In respect of sprinkling them] without [the Temple court], at night, zaruth, [the requirement of] a service-vessel, [sprinkling on] the horn, [with] the finger, washing, and residue, they are as the first blood. [In respect of] death, not permitting [the flesh], not rendering [it] piggul, and not entering within, they are as the last blood. R. Papa said: How do I know it? — Because we learnt: If [the blood] spurted [direct] from the [animal's] throat on to the [priest's] garment, it does not need washing; from the horn or from the base [of the altar], it does not need washing. Hence, [if some] of [the blood] which was fit for the horn [spurted on the garment], it does need washing. Then on your reasoning [you may argue, ‘If it spurted] from the base, it does not need washing; hence if some [of the blood] which was fit for the base [spurted on the garment], it does need washing? [Yet surely] it is written, And if aught of the blood which is to be sprinkled [spurt] upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place, which excludes this [residue], as the [blood] has already been sprinkled? [Hence you must say that] this is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, for we learnt: R. Nehemiah said: If one presented the residue of the blood without [the Temple court], he is liable. But granted that you know R. Nehemiah [to rule thus] in respect of presenting [the blood without the Temple court], by analogy with the limbs and the fat pieces, do you [however] know him [to rule thus] in respect of washing? — Yes,
—