Parallel
זבחים 52:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
[the residue of] the inner [offerings] on the outer [altar], and [that of] the outer [offerings] on the inner [altar]; surely the inner altar had no base! ‘Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering! But is it written, ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’? surely it is written, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering!’ — If ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’ were written, I would say [that it means] on the vertical [wall] of the base; now that it is written, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, it denotes on the roof [top] of the base. [Thereupon] R. Ishmael said: For the roof of the base, why do I need a text? [this would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the roof; then the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement, is it not logical that it requires the roof [of the base]? Said R. Akiba: If the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires the roof of the base, is it not logical that the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement and comes for atonement, requires the roof of the altar? If so, why does Scripture state, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering’? To teach: apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering. Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They disagree as to whether [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. One master holds: It is indispensable, while the other master holds: It is not indispensable. R. Papa said: All agree that the residue is not indispensable, but here they disagree as to whether the draining out of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable or not: one master holds that it is indispensable, while the other master holds that it is not indispensable. It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar: Why is ‘the bullock’ stated? It teaches that the Day of Atonement bullock must have its blood poured out at the base: that is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Ishmael: [This is inferred] a fortiori: if that whose blood does not enter within as a statutory obligation needs the base, that whose blood enters within as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? Said R. Akiba: If that whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctuary either as a statutory obligation or as a regulation needs the base, that whose blood enters the innermost sanctuary as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it: therefore it states, And he shall make an end of atoning, which teaches, All the atoning services are [now] complete: these are the words of R. Ishmael. Now an a fortiori argument can be made in respect of the anointed priest's bullock: If that whose blood does not enter within either as a statutory obligation or, as a regulation, needs the base; that whose blood enters within both as a statutory obligation and as a regulation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it; therefore Scripture says, ‘And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out’: the Writ transmutes it into the remainder of a precept to teach you that [the pouring out of] the residue is not indispensable. Now, does R. Ishmael hold that the draining of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable? Surely the school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘And the rest of the blood shall be drained out’: that which is left must be drained out,
—