זבחים 37 — Soncino English Talmud

¹Whence do we know that all blood must be poured out at the base [of the altar]? From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar! — He deduces that from Rabbi's [inference]. For it was taught: Rabbi said: [Scripture writes,] And the rest of the blood shall be drained out [at the base of the altar]. Now, ‘of the blood’ need not be stated; why then is it stated? Because we have learnt only that that blood which requires four applications must be poured out at the base; whence do we know it of other blood? From the text, ‘And the rest of the blood shall be drained out [at the base of the altar]’. Yet still, does it come for this purpose? It is required for what was taught: How do we know that if [the priest] poured out [the blood] which should be sprinkled, he has fulfilled [his obligation]? From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out. He holds as R. Akiba who maintained: pouring is not included in sprinkling, nor is sprinkling included in pouring. For we learnt: If he recited the blessing for the Passover-offering, he thereby exempts the [festival] sacrifice; but if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice, he does not exempt the Passover-offering. This is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: The former does not exempt the latter, nor does the latter exempt the former. Yet still, is it required for this purpose? [Surely] it is needed for what was taught, [viz.]: R. Ishmael said: From the text, But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat [thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire], we learn that a firstling must have its blood and its emurim presented at the altar. Whence do we know [it of] the tithe and the Passover-offering? Because it says, ‘And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out’? — He agrees with R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: [Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke]: not ‘its blood’ is said, but ‘their blood’; not ‘its fat’ is said, but ‘their fat’. This teaches concerning the firstling, the tithe [of animals], and the Passover-offering, that their blood and emurim must be presented at the altar. Now, does R. Ishmael utilise this text for both purposes? — There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Ishmael's view. As for R. Ishmael, who makes the whole verse refer to a firstling, it is well: hence it is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine. But according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too, [surely] the tithe and the Passover-offering are eaten by their owners; what then is the meaning of ‘And the flesh of them shall be thine’? — [The plural intimates,] whether it be whole or blemished,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:If any blood is left over after the regulation sprinkling. — This is stated explicitly of the sin-offering only (Lev. IV, 18), and the Talmud now wishes to extend it to other sacrifices too.
^ᵇnote:The author of the first deduction.
^ᶜnote:Lev. V, 9.
^ᵈnote:It is understood from the general context.
^ᵉnote:Viz., the sin-offering.
^ᶠnote:The two lines that follow in the original are a mere repetition, and are deleted by Sh. M.
^ᵍnote:Some blood requires sprinkling (zerikah), i.e., from the distance: other requires pouring out (shefikah), i.e., the priest must stand at the side of the altar and pour the blood out.
^ʰnote:The sacrifice is valid.
^ⁱnote:The plural indicates all sacrifices, even those for which zerikah is prescribed.
^ʲnote:Therefore where Scripture prescribes sprinkling, the sacrifice is not valid if the blood is merely poured out at the base. Hence he rejects the above interpretation, and so utilises the text for the purpose originally stated.
^ᵏnote:In Pes. 121a it is explained that in R. Ishmael's opinion sprinkling (zerikah) is included in pouring (shefikah), but pouring is not included in sprinkling; whereas R. Akiba holds that neither is included in the other. Thus (as explained by Rashbam a.l.): Both R. Ishmael and R. Akiba hold that the blood of the Passover-offering must be poured out, i.e., the priest must stand quite close to the altar and gently pour the blood on to its base. But the blood of the festival-offering (hagigah) requires sprinkling, i.e., from a distance and with some force. Now R. Ishmael holds that if the latter is poured out instead of sprinkled, the obligation of sprinkling has nevertheless been discharged. Consequently, the blessing for the Passover-offering includes that of the festival-offering, since in both the blood may be poured on to the base of the altar. But if the blood of the Passover-offering is sprinkled, the obligation has not been discharged: consequently the blessing for the festival-offering, whose blood is normally sprinkled, does not exempt the Passover-offering. By the same reasoning we infer that in R. Akiba's view neither includes the other.
^ˡnote:Num. XVIII, 17.
^ᵐnote:Ibid.
^ⁿnote:Though the passage treats of the firstling only. The plural possessive suffix indicates that other sacrifices too are included in this law.
^ᵒnote:These are the only sacrifices in connection with which it is not mentioned elsewhere, hence the plural is applied to them.
^ᵖnote:Lit., ‘for this purpose and for that purpose’. Surely not! The reference is to ‘and the blood of thy sacrifices thou shalt pour out’, from which he learns that if the priest pours out blood which really should be sprinkled, he discharges his obligation. The author of that cannot be R. Akiba, for if it is, why does the blessing for the Passover-offering not exempt that of the festival sacrifice, since, as shewn supra, one is dependent on the other? Hence the author must be R. Ishmael; but he also interprets the same verse as intimating that the blood of the Passover-offering is to be poured, not sprinkled.
^ᵠnote:Rashi: He who learns from this text that the blood of the Passover-offering is poured out, rejects the ruling that the benediction for the Passover-offering exempts that for the festival-offering, and holds that R. Ishmael does not disagree with R. Akiba on this matter, for now we cannot learn from the text that what should be sprinkled is also valid if poured out. He however who maintains that they do disagree, holds that the blood of the Passover must be sprinkled, not poured out, like a peace-offering. Nevertheless, the Passover-offering is the principal one, while the festival-offering is only subsidiary to it; therefore the benediction for the former exempts that of the latter, but not vice versa. Tosaf. strongly criticises this explanation, and offers others, none of which, however, are quite free from objections.
^ʳnote:Num. XVIII, 18. — ‘Thine’ means the priest's, to whom the firstling belongs. The Plural ‘them’ is then understood to mean the ox, sheep, and goat, enumerated in the preceding verse.

²thus intimating that a blemished firstling is given to a priest, for which [teaching] we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah. And R. Ishmael? — He deduces it from ‘it shall be thine’, [written] at the end [of the verse]. It is well according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too: hence it is written, Thou shalt not redeem; they are holy, [which intimates] ‘they’ are offered, but their substitutes are not offered. And we learnt [even so]. The substitutes of a firstling or tithe — they themselves, their young, and the young of their young ad infinitum are as the firstling or tithe [respectively], and are eaten, when blemished, by their owners. And we [also] learnt: R. Joshua said: I have heard [from my teachers] that the substitute of a Passover-offering is offered, and that the substitute of a Passover-offering is not offered, and I cannot explain it. But according to R. Ishmael who makes the whole of it refer to a firstling, whence does he know that the substitute of tithe and the Passover-offering are not offered? — As for tithe, he learns similarity of law with a firstling from the fact that ‘passing’ is written in both cases. As for the Passover-offering, [consider:] ‘lamb’ is explicitly written in connection with it; why then does Scripture write, If he bring a lamb for his offering? To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [intimating] that it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. You might think that it is likewise so before Passover, therefore Scripture writes, It [is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover]. Now, all these Tannaim who utilise this [text], ‘the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out’, for a different exegesis, how do they know this [law of the Mishnah that] WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT? — They hold as Beth Hillel who maintained: WITH REGARD TO THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT; and we learn all the others from the sin-offering. BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]. R. Huna said, What is Beth Shammai's reason? — The plural form karnoth [horns] is written three times, denoting six [applications], [thus intimating that] four are prescribed while two [at least] are essential. But Beth Hillel [argue]: [The written forms are] karnath [singular] twice, and karnoth [plural] once, which denotes four, implying that three [applications] are prescribed, while [only] one is essential. Yet say, that all are [only] prescribed? We find no atonement without rite. Alternatively, this is Beth Hillel's reason: Both mikra [the version as read] and masoreth [the version as traditionally written] are effective: the mikra is effective in adding one [application], while the masoreth is effective in subtracting one. If so, [when Scripture writes] letotafath, letotafath, letotafoth, which denotes four [compartments], [you can likewise argue that] both the mikra and the masoreth are effective: then five compartments should be necessary? — He holds as R. Akiba, who said: Tot means two in Katpi, and foth means two in Afriki. [Again] if so [when Scripture writes], ba-sukkath, ba-sukkath, ba-sukkoth, [you may argue that] both the mikra and the masoreth are effective: then one should have five walls [for the tabernacle booth]?^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ

^ˢnote:The point of the question and answer is this: ‘Them’ obviously cannot mean the tithe and the Passover-offering, as R. Jose explains the plural in v. 17, since these belong to the owner. Nor can the plural here refer, in his view, to the ox, sheep, and goat, for in that case he could explain ‘their blood’ and ‘their fat’ similarly. Hence the difficulty, why is the plural used? The answer is, to intimate two categories of firstlings, whole and blemished.
^ᵗnote:Whence does he know this?
^ᵘnote:This repetition is to include the blemished firstling.
^ᵛnote:Ibid.
^ʷnote:If one declares another animal a substitute for them, they are not offered, contrary to the general rule that the substitute is offered (together with the original) in exactly the same way as the original.
^ˣnote:But not sacrificed while they are whole.
^ʸnote:As a peace-offering, after Passover. — This is where the original is available for Passover.
^ᶻnote:As a peace-offering, but must graze until it is blemished, when it is redeemed.
^ᵃᵃnote:For the explanation v. Pes. 96b.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. supra 9a.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. III, 7. — Scripture prescribes a lamb for a Passover-offering (Ex. XII, 5) which was in the nature of a peace-offering. Why then must Scripture also inform us that a lamb might be brought for a peace-offering? (The Talmud does not quote the exact wording, as keseb is not written in connection with the Passover-offering, but a lamb is prescribed, though a slightly different word (kebes) is used.)
^ᵃᵈnote:Ex. XII, 27. — ‘It’ (Heb. hu) is emphatic, and teaches that only the original animal dedicated for a Passover-offering is to be sacrificed, but not its substitute which is kept until after Passover. An animal would be proposed as a substitute if the first one was lost, and is subject to the laws stated here if the first one is refound in time to be sacrificed for its original purpose. If the first is not found until after the second has been offered, it becomes a Passover remainder’, and is sacrificed as a peace-offering after the festival.
^ᵃᵉnote:The case of the sin-offering itself is learnt infra.
^ᵃᶠnote:The reference is to Lev. IV, 25, 30, 34 q. v. The traditional reading in all cases is karnoth horns, but it is actually written karnath (,bre singular) twice. Beth Shammai make the reading decisive, while Beth Hillel follow the written forms.
^ᵃᵍnote:In the first place, but are not essential, since Scripture does not repeat any of them to intimate that they are indispensable.
^ᵃʰnote:Since the mikra implies six while the masoreth implies four, the implication of both is five; but as there are only four horns on the altar, the fifth must be regarded as a reiteration of one application, and hence it (i.e., one application) becomes indispensable; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 4b. q.v. notes.
^ᵃⁱnote:Frontlets. V. Ex. XIII, 16; Deut. VI, 8, XI, 18: — and it shall be . . . for frontlets between thine eyes. This is the law of tefillin (v. Glos.); the word is written twice defectively and once plene (in our version it is written only once defectively), but read plene in every case. From the two defective and one plene forms the Rabbis learnt that the tefillin of the head must consist of four compartments.
^ᵃʲnote:The author of this interpretation of karnoth.
^ᵃᵏnote:Perhaps the Coptic language.
^ᵃˡnote:The language of N. Africa or Phrygia in Asia Minor. Hence the word totafoth itself implies four, without recourse to its repetition.
^ᵃᵐnote:‘In booths’: Ye shall dwell in booths seven days etc. (Lev. XXIII, 42-43). Here too it is written twice defectively and once plene, and the Rabbis learn that the number of walls required by a booth is four, in the same way that they learn that the tefillin must have four compartments.