Zevachim

Surely that means on the [upper] half of the altar, as people say, The noon-light shines, and so it is midday?1 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.2 But there is the remainder [of the blood]?3 — The [pouring out of] the remainder [at the altar's base] is not essential.4 But there is the remainder of inner sin-offerings,5 which, according to one view is essential?6 We mean in one and the same place.7 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;8 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?9 — Said Raba to him: When the question was [first] asked, it was whether [the sacrifice] was permitted,10 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.11 R. Papa said: In some respects [they are] as the first blood, while in others they are as the last:12 [In respect of sprinkling them] without [the Temple court], at night, zaruth,13 [the requirement of] a service-vessel, [sprinkling on] the horn, [with] the finger, washing,14 and residue,15 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.16 R. Papa said: How do I know it?17 — 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.18 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 base19 [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,20 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.21 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,22 do you [however] know him [to rule thus] in respect of washing? — Yes, in all its clarity and purity). And in this case it was hardly possible to avoid some of the blood falling below the line. (on top). remainder, is poured out at the base of the outer altar. are essential, each sprinkling is only half a mattir (q.v. Glos.), through which one cannot render a sacrifice piggul. more lenient view; the exceptions are enumerated in the Tractate ‘Eduyyoth, and the present controversy is not included. But in fact here too Beth Hillel are more severe, in that they rule that a piggul intention expressed during one application only renders the sin-offering piggul. sprinklings at all; nevertheless, they must not be done at night, in accordance with the general law that the blood must not be kept until the night. Again, if the owner of the sacrifice dies before its blood is sprinkled, the blood cannot be sprinkled and the sacrifice is burnt. But if the owner dies after the first application, which in itself rendered the sacrifice valid, the other three applications are made. And similarly since the sprinkling of these is deemed a valid sacrificial service, to sprinkle them without is to incur guilt. governed in some respects by the laws appertaining to the first application; while in others they are regarded simply as the pouring out of the remainder of the blood. spurted before the first application. But if it spurts on to it after the four applications before the pouring out of the residue, it need not be so washed, as is shewn infra. blood in each counts as the residue, which is to be poured out at the base. applications. (ii) They do not permit the flesh, since this was permitted by the first application. (iii) If the first application was made in silence, and these with a piggul intention, they do not render the sacrifice piggul. Finally, (iv) if the first application was properly made, on the outer altar, and the blood for these applications was taken within, into the hekal (q.v. Glos.), the sacrifice does not become invalid, as it would be if the blood for the first application were so treated. For Scripture says, And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting (i.e. the inner sanctum, corresponding to the hekal) to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire (Lev. VI, 23). With the first application, however, atonement is made, and so this blood is not brought ‘to make atonement’. — In all these respects the blood for the three applications is regarded as the residue, just as that which remains after all the applications. bears that status in respect to washing too. Hence this does not support R. Papa, as it is an individual view. The others, however, who rule that there is no liability, will also hold that no washing is required. hold good of the residue, even if it should not bear the status of blood.