זבחים 51 — Soncino English Talmud

¹cleanses it, when terefah, from its uncleanness; so wringing [the neck], which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses it, when terefah, from its uncleanness. R. Jose said: It is sufficient that it be like the nebelah of a clean [i.e., edible] animal, which is cleansed by shechitah, but not by wringing its neck. Yet that is not so: even granted there that it is so, yet it is deduced from the shechitah of hullin. Can that which is learnt by a binyan ab teach by a hekkesh or by a gezerah shawah or by a kal wa-homer or by a binyan ab? — Solve one [of the questions] from the following: Why did they say that if the blood is kept overnight [on the altar] it is fit? Because if the emurim are kept overnight they are fit. Why are the emurim fit if kept overnight? Because the flesh is fit if kept overnight. [Flesh that] goes out? Because [flesh that] goes out is fit at the high place [bamah]. Unclean [flesh]? Because it was permitted in public service. [The emurim of a burnt-offering intended to be burnt] after time? Because it propitiates in respect of its piggul status. [The emurim of a burnt-offering intended to be burnt] out of bounds? Because it was likened to [the intention to burn it] after time. Where unfit [persons] received [the blood] and sprinkled it — in the case of those unfit persons who are eligible for public service. Can you then argue from what is its proper way to that where the same is not the proper way? — The Tanna relies on the extension indicated by This is the law of the burnt-offering. THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD etc. What is the reason? — Scripture saith, [And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out] at the base of the altar of burnt-offering [which is at the door of the tent of meeting]; [this intimates]: the one which you first meet. Our Rabbis taught: ‘At the base of the altar of burnt-offering’, but not at the base of the inner altar; ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering’: the inner altar itself has no base; ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering’: apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering. Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering? Said R. Ishmael [This would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the base; then surely the sprinkling itself of the [blood of the] burnt-offering, which makes atonement, requires the base! Said R. Akiba [too: This would follow] a fortiori: if the residue, which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires 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 base? 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. The Master said: ‘At the base of the altar of burnt-offering, but not at the base of the inner altar.’ Surely that is required for its own purpose? — That is learnt from, which is at the door of the tent of meeting. ‘At the base of the altar of burnt-offering:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:This argument is a binyan ab. Thus what was learnt by a kal wa-homer then teaches through a binyan ab.
^ᵇnote:Since the argument is alternately based on an animal, the bird sacrifice cannot be clean where the animal would not be.
^ᶜnote:The Talmud rejects R. Jeremiah's proof. Firstly, because R. Meir does not really learn it by a binyan ab, as might appear here, but from hekkesh, as stated infra 69b q.v. Yet even granted that he does learn it by a binyan ab, the premise (i.e., the teacher) is hullin, and if R. Papa's view is rejected even when what is to be learnt is sacred, nothing can be proved from the present instance (Rashi. Other commentaries explain differently).
^ᵈnote:I.e., if it was taken up on the altar it is not taken down.
^ᵉnote:Likewise in the same sense. Similarly the other cases mentioned.
^ᶠnote:As two days were allowed for the eating of peace-offerings. Thus emurim are learnt by a binyan ab from the flesh, and these in turn teach by a binyan ab in respect of the blood.
^ᵍnote:Why does such flesh not descend if this is taken up on the altar?
^ʰnote:Where sacrifices were offered before the building of the Temple (v. p. 82, n. 1.).
^ⁱnote:V. p. 84, n. 7.
^ʲnote:The sprinkling of the blood is effective (technically ‘propitiates’) in making it piggul and involving kareth, just as though all its mattirin had been offered (v. supra 28b, p. 143, n. 1.). The emurim of piggul do not descend, once they ascended.
^ᵏnote:E.g., an unclean priest, who is fit when the sacrifice is brought in uncleanness. — Only then does the blood not descend, once it ascended. This is apparently the meaning of the text, but in that case the question is left unanswered. Possibly, however, the second half is the answer; thus: Why does the blood not descend when unfit persons received or sprinkled it? Because it does not descend in the case of those unfit persons who are eligible for public service, i.e., unclean priests when the community is unclean.
^ˡnote:E.g., you argue that the emurim if kept overnight do not descend because the flesh if kept overnight is fit. But the flesh may be kept overnight, whereas the emurim may not. Similarly, when the Temple stood the flesh might not be taken out; whereas there were no boundaries at all in the case of the bamah.
^ᵐnote:Lev. VI, 2. The verse teaches that all the burnt-offerings (i.e., even when they have the defects mentioned in the text) have one law, and do not descend once they have ascended. The arguments given are mere supports, though strictly speaking they cannot be sustained.
^ⁿnote:Lev. IV, 7.
^ᵒnote:As you enter from the door. This was the western base.
^ᵖnote:The Bible contains five sections dealing with the sin-offering (Lev. IV), viz.: (i) The sin-offering of the anointed priest (vv. 1-12); (ii) that of the whole congregation (13-22); (iii) that of a ruler (22-26); (iv) the female goat of a common layman (27-32); and (v) the lamb of a common layman (32-35). The first two were offered on the inner altar; the other three on the outer. Again, in reference to the first three Scripture states that the residue of the blood shall be poured out ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering’ (vv. 7, 18 and 25), whereas in connection with the remaining two the ‘base of the altar’ alone is mentioned. Here the Rabbis explain why Scripture specifies the altar of the burnt-offering in the first three. The first teaches that the residue is poured out at the base of the outer altar (i.e., the altar of burnt-offering), but not at the base of the inner altar, notwithstanding that the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the inner altar. The second is superfluous, since it is assimilated to the first (v. 20). Hence it teaches that only the outer altar was provided with a special base, but not the inner altar. The third too is superfluous, because firstly, if the residue of the blood of the inner sin-offerings is poured out at the base of the outer altar, obviously the blood of the outer sin-offerings will not be poured out at the base of the inner altar; and secondly, we have already learnt that the inner altar was not provided with a special base. Hence it intimates that the residue of the blood of all sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the altar of burnt-offering must be poured out at its base.
^ᵠnote:Perhaps it does not teach anything concerning the residue of the blood, but that the two sprinklings of the blood of the burnt-offering must be made over against that part of the altar which had a special base; this would exclude the south-east horn, which had no base (v. infra 53b).
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘the beginning of the burnt-offering’.
^ˢnote:I.e., it must be sprinkled on the horns provided with a base, as in the preceding note. The rendering is not quite literal. Thus a special text would not be required, if its teaching were only as suggested.
^ᵗnote:Viz., that the residue is to be poured out at the base of the outer altar; nevertheless, if he wishes to pour it out at the base of the inner altar, he should certainly be permitted, since this is more sacred. Though it has been deduced that the inner altar had no special base at all, that is only on the assumption that all three are superfluous; but if the first is required for the purpose of stating the law, then the second is required for the present limitation, and the third as in the text, leaving nothing to shew that the inner altar was not provided with a base.
^ᵘnote:Which shews that the outer altar is meant; hence ‘of burnt-offering’ is superfluous.

²apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering.’ For if you think that it is [meant literally] as written, why do I need a text in respect of the residue, seeing that [the pouring out of] the residue was performed without? And should you say [that but for the text, I would argue] that it is indeed reversed:^ᵛ