זבחים 39 — Soncino English Talmud

¹and [so] it was taught: The bloods which require the base necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective, and one who presents thereof without [the Temple court] is liable. The blood, however, which is poured out into the duct does not necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is not effective, and one who presents thereof without is exempt [from punishment]. Now, whom do you know to rule that one who presents thereof without is liable? R. Nehemiah: and he [also] rules [that] it necessitates washing and [that] an [illegitimate] intention in connection with the same is effective. But it was taught: [The pouring out of] the residue and the burning of the limbs [on the altar], which are not indispensable for atonement, are excepted, in that an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is of no effect? — That was taught in reference to the [last] three applications of a sin-offering. If so, [why does it say] ‘which requires the base?’ [Surely] it is sprinkled on the horn [of the altar]? — Say, which is required for the base. But then, what of ‘And an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective’? Surely you said, ‘It does not permit [the flesh], it does not render [it] piggul, and does not enter within, as the last blood’? — Rather that [Baraitha] was taught in respect of the blood of the inner [sacrifices]. But in the case of the blood of outer [sacrifices] what [will you say]? he is exempt? Then instead of teaching [about] the blood which is poured out into the duct, let [the Tanna] teach a distinction in that very case. [Thus:] This is said only of the blood of inner [sacrifices], but in the case of the outer sacrifices, he is exempt? — This is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, who maintained [that] one who presents the residue of the blood without is liable, and so he [the Tanna] could not enumerate three instances of exemption corresponding to three instances of liability. Rabina said, ‘From the horn’ is meant literally, but ‘from the base’ means, from that which is fit for the base. Said R. Tahlifa b. Gaza to Rabina: perhaps both mean [the blood] that is fit [etc.]? — How is that possible: Seeing that you say that [even the blood] fit for the horn [does] not [necessitate washing], need one speak about the blood fit for the base? Hence ‘from the horn’ is meant literally, while ‘from the base’ means from that which is fit for the base. ALL [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR etc. Our Rabbis taught: Thus shall he do [with the bullock]; as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this]: Why is this stated? As a repetition of the [law of sprinkling], to teach that if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has done nothing. I know this only of the seven applications, which are indispensable in all cases; whence do we know [it] of the four applications? From the text, ‘So shall he do with this’. ‘With the bullock’ means the bullock of the Day of Atonement16^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the residue which must be poured out at the base.
^ᵇnote:Blood which had become unfit was poured into a duct in the Temple court, whence it flowed out into the stream of Kidron.
^ᶜnote:Cf. supra 13a bottom.
^ᵈnote:Sc. the ruling that an illegitimate intention is effective.
^ᵉnote:The ultimate residue is poured out at the base.
^ᶠnote:It refers indeed, as hitherto assumed, to the residue, not to the three applications, but to the residue of sin-offerings presented at the inner altar, and in accordance with the view that that is indispensable (infra 52a); consequently it can render the sacrifice piggul.
^ᵍnote:For presenting it without the Temple court.
^ʰnote:Even of the outer sin-offerings.
^ⁱnote:The Baraitha enumerates three instances of liability and three of exemption (i.e., three instances where the residue bears the full status of blood, and three where it does not). But if the Tanna drew a distinction between the residue of inner sacrifices and that of outer sacrifices respectively, he could not maintain that parallelism.
^ʲnote:He refers to the Mishnah quoted supra 38b. For if it is meant literally, it is superfluous: seeing that the blood which spurts from the horn does not necessitate washing, it is surely obvious that that which spurts from the base does not necessitate washing. — Thus he answers the objection ‘then on your reasoning’ etc., which was raised against R. Papa's proof.
^ᵏnote:Which interpretation, implying that there is blood fit for the horn, i.e., the three last applications, and yet it does not necessitate washing, would refute R. Papa!
^ˡnote:Lev. IV, 20. This treats of the sin-offering brought when the whole congregation sins, which was offered on the inner altar. The verse itself is apparently superfluous, since all its rites are described in detail.
^ᵐnote:The sacrifice is invalid.
^ⁿnote:Before the veil of the ark.
^ᵒnote:This is yet another repetition. Since its implication of indispensability is not required in respect of the seven applications, it is transferred to the four applications on the altar.
^ᵖnote:Teaching that its laws are the same as those which govern that bullock brought for the whole congregation's sin.

²‘As he did with the bullock’ refers to the bullock of the anointed priest; ‘the sin-offering’ refers to the goats of idolatry. You might think that I include the festival goats and new-moon goats. Therefore Scripture states, ‘[So shall he do] with this’. And what [reason] do you see for including the former and excluding the latter? Since the Writ intimates extension and intimates limitation, I include the former, which make atonement for the known transgression of a precept: while I exclude the latter, which do not make atonement for the known transgression of a precept. And [the priest] shall make atonement — even though he had not laid hands [on the bullock]: and it shall be forgiven to them — even though he had not poured out the residue. And what [reason] do you see for invalidating [the sacrifice] in the case of sprinklings and validating [it] in the case of laying on [of hands] and the residue? You can answer: I invalidate in the case of sprinklings, as they are indispensable elsewhere: while I validate in the case of laying on [of hands] and the residue, which are not indispensable in all [other] cases.^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ᵠnote:Which is treated of in the previous section (Lev. IV, 3 seq.). This thus becomes a repetition, with the same implication that there too all the blood applications are essential.
^ʳnote:I.e., which were brought to atone for idolatry; v. Num. XV, 27 seq. which is applied to this case. The details of their rites are not explained there; by making the present text refer to them, we learn that their rites are the same as those prescribed here.
^ˢnote:To teach that their rites too are the same.
^ᵗnote:But not with other sacrifices.
^ᵘnote:The festival and new-moon sin-offerings made atonement for the inadvertent defiling of the Temple, of which the offender would not know at all (v. Shebu. 2a).
^ᵛnote:Num. XV, 28.
^ʷnote:Ibid.
^ˣnote:Of the blood, on the outer altar.
^ʸnote:Why interpret the verse so that an omission of one of the sprinklings invalidates the sacrifice, while the omission of laying hands or pouring out the residue at the base of the outer altar, leaves it valid? Perhaps you should reverse it.
^ᶻnote:Lit., ‘in all places.’ — The allusion is explained anon.