Zevachim

and [so] it was taught: The bloods which require the base1 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 duct2 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?3 — That4 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.5 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].6 But in the case of the blood of outer [sacrifices] what [will you say]? he is exempt?7 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 blood8 without is liable, and so he [the Tanna] could not enumerate three instances of exemption corresponding to three instances of liability.9 Rabina said, ‘From the horn’ is meant literally, but ‘from the base’ means, from that which is fit for the base.10 Said R. Tahlifa b. Gaza to Rabina: perhaps both mean [the blood] that is fit [etc.]?11 — 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]:12 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.13 I know this only of the seven applications,14 which are indispensable in all cases; whence do we know [it] of the four applications? From the text, ‘So shall he do with this’.15 ‘With the bullock’ means the bullock of the Day of Atonement16 Kidron. presented at the inner altar, and in accordance with the view that that is indispensable (infra 52a); consequently it can render the sacrifice piggul. 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. 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. necessitate washing, would refute R. Papa! inner altar. The verse itself is apparently superfluous, since all its rites are described in detail. applications, it is transferred to the four applications on the altar.