זבחים 52 — Soncino English Talmud

¹[the residue of] the inner [offerings] on the outer [altar], and [that of] the outer [offerings] on the inner [altar]; surely the inner altar had no base! ‘Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering! But is it written, ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’? surely it is written, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering!’ — If ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’ were written, I would say [that it means] on the vertical [wall] of the base; now that it is written, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, it denotes on the roof [top] of the base. [Thereupon] R. Ishmael said: For the roof of the base, why do I need a text? [this would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the roof; then the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement, is it not logical that it requires the roof [of the base]? Said R. Akiba: If the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires the roof of 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 roof of the altar? 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. Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They disagree as to whether [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. One master holds: It is indispensable, while the other master holds: It is not indispensable. R. Papa said: All agree that the residue is not indispensable, but here they disagree as to whether the draining out of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable or not: one master holds that it is indispensable, while the other master holds that it is not indispensable. It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar: Why is ‘the bullock’ stated? It teaches that the Day of Atonement bullock must have its blood poured out at the base: that is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Ishmael: [This is inferred] a fortiori: if that whose blood does not enter within as a statutory obligation needs the base, that whose blood enters within as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? Said R. Akiba: If that whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctuary either as a statutory obligation or as a regulation needs the base, that whose blood enters the innermost sanctuary as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it: therefore it states, And he shall make an end of atoning, which teaches, All the atoning services are [now] complete: these are the words of R. Ishmael. Now an a fortiori argument can be made in respect of the anointed priest's bullock: If that whose blood does not enter within either as a statutory obligation or, as a regulation, needs the base; that whose blood enters within both as a statutory obligation and as a regulation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it; therefore Scripture says, ‘And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out’: the Writ transmutes it into the remainder of a precept to teach you that [the pouring out of] the residue is not indispensable. Now, does R. Ishmael hold that the draining of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable? Surely the school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘And the rest of the blood shall be drained out’: that which is left must be drained out,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the residue of the blood of the inner sin-offerings is to be poured out at the base of the outer altar, and vice versa.
^ᵇnote:Hence it must be interpreted as stated.
^ᶜnote:If it intimated that the sprinkling itself must be performed on that part of the altar which has a base (v. p. 259, n. 4). it could not refer to sin-offerings, whose blood was sprinkled on all the horns of the altar, including the south-east. Hence it would have to refer to the burnt-offering alone; but in that case Scripture should write, at the base of the burnt-offering, which would intimate that the blood of the burnt-offering must be sprinkled over against the base. The word ‘altar’ then becomes redundant.
^ᵈnote:The base was a cubit high, the altar then being recessed one cubit; thus the base had a vertical wall of a cubit, and a top surface (roof) of a cubit.
^ᵉnote:Which is hard by the altar itself.
^ᶠnote:R. Ishmael and R. Akiba.
^ᵍnote:R. Akiba holds the latter view; hence he emphasises that it does not come for atonement.
^ʰnote:V. Lev. V, 9: and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar.
^ⁱnote:Lev. IV, 7. The text refers to the anointed priest's sin-offering.
^ʲnote:It is apparently superfluous, since the whole passage deals with it.
^ᵏnote:‘The bullock’, being superfluous, extends this law to another bullock.
^ˡnote:Emended text. Cur. edd. Rabbi.
^ᵐnote:Sc. the anointed priest's bullock of sin-offering. Its blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, where it is sacrificed, but there is no statutory obligation for the offering at all, as he need not have sinned.
^ⁿnote:The Day of Atonement bullock is a statutory offering, whether the High Priest had sinned or not.
^ᵒnote:The Holy of Holies.
^ᵖnote:Sc. the pouring out of the blood of the Day of Atonement bullock at the base.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XVI, 20.
^ʳnote:I.e., all the services indispensable to atonement have by now been enumerated, and the pouring out of the blood at the base is not one of them.
^ˢnote:E.g., the blood of the ruler's he-goat or of a common layman's sin-offering: both were slaughtered at the outer altar, and their blood was poured out there.
^ᵗnote:Viz., the blood of the anointed priest's bullock. Rashi proposes the deletion of ‘a statutory obligation’, since it has just been stated that it is not one. If it is retained, we must explain that it is called a statutory obligation only by comparison with the blood of other sin-offerings, which does not enter within at all.
^ᵘnote:Since it can be inferred thus, the explicit Scriptural law to that effect is apparently superfluous and so might be interpreted as teaching that it is indispensable. Therefore he proceeds to shew that it is not indispensable.
^ᵛnote:Scripture changed the form of expression here: for the other services (sc. the carrying and sprinkling) are ordered thus: and he shall take . . . and he shall sprinkle etc. The different grammatical form in this case shews that this pouring out is, as it were, not an integral part of the rite, but the remaining portion of it, which should be done, yet is not indispensable.
^ʷnote:And since this is given as R. Ishmael's view, it supports R. Papa's thesis supra.

²but what is not left is not drained out? — There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Ishmael's opinion. Rami b. Hama said: The following Tanna holds that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. For it was taught: [This is the law of the sin-offering . . .] the priest that offereth it for sin [shall eat it]: [this teaches,] only that [sin-offering] whose blood was sprinkled above [the red line], but not that whose blood was applied below. Say: whence did you come [to this]? From the implication of what is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [. . . and thou shalt eat the flesh], we learn that if [the blood of] those [sacrifices] which need four applications was presented with one application [only], it has made atonement; you might therefore think that also if the blood which should be sprinkled above [the red line] was sprinkled below, it makes atonement. And it is [indeed] logical: Blood is prescribed above, and blood is prescribed below: as the blood which is prescribed below does not atone if it is sprinkled above, so also the blood which is prescribed above does not atone if it is sprinkled below. No: if you say [thus] in the case of the blood which should be sprinkled below, that is because it will not eventually [be applied] above; will you say the same of the blood which should be sprinkled above, seeing that it will eventually [find its way] below? Let the inner blood prove it, which will eventually come without, and yet if he applied it in the first place without, he did not make atonement. No: if you speak of the inner blood, that is because the inner altar does not complete it. Will you say thus of the upper [blood], where the horns complete it? [and] since the horns complete it, if he sprinkled it below, it is fit. Therefore it says, ‘[The priest that offereth] it [for a sin-offering]’: that whose blood was sprinkled above, but not that whose blood was sprinkled below. Now, what is the meaning of ‘because the inner altar does not complete it’? Surely it must refer to the residue [of the blood]! Said Raba to him: If so, you could infer it a minori: if the blood of the inner sacrifices, of which eventually the residue is obligatory without, yet if presented without in the first place, he does not make atonement; then the blood which is to be sprinkled above, and is not eventually obligatory below, is it not logical that if he applied it at the outset below he does not make atonement? — Rather [the meaning is this]: Not the altar alone completes it, but also the veil . Our Rabbis taught: ‘And he shall make an end of atoning’: if he atoned, he made an end, while if he did not atone, he did not make an end: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah to him: why should we not interpret: If he made an end, he atoned, while if he did not make an end, he did not atone, which thus intimates that if he omitted one of the sprinklings his service is ineffective? Wherein do they differ? — R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi [disagree]. One maintains: They differ on the mode of interpretation. The other maintains: They differ as to whether the [pouring out of the] residue is indispensable. It may be proved that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who maintained that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: On the view that the residue is indispensable he brings another bullock and commences within. But does R.Johanan not hold this view? Surely R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the residue is indispensable? But you must say ‘In accordance with the view’, but not that of these Tannaim. Then here too, ‘on the view’ does not refer to that of these Tannaim. MISHNAH. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIN-OFFERINGS (THESE ARE THE PUBLIC SIN-OFFERINGS: THE HE-GOATS OF NEW MOONS AND FESTIVALS) ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD IS RECEIVED IN A SERVICE VESSEL IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS ON THE FOUR HORNS. HOW WAS IT DONE?^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ

^ˣnote:I.e., all the blood may be used in sprinkling so that nothing is left for draining. Hence draining cannot be essential and indispensable.
^ʸnote:Lev. VI, 18, 19. ‘Offereth it for sin,’ Heb. ha-mehatte, is understood to mean, who correctly performs all the rites (sprinkling) appertaining to a sin-offering; only then may he eat it.
^ᶻnote:As is necessary for a sin-offering, V. p. 48, n. 1.
^ᵃᵃnote:The flesh may not be eaten.
^ᵃᵇnote:Why would you think that the flesh may be eaten even if the blood was not properly sprinkled, that you need a text to shew that it may not?
^ᵃᶜnote:Deut. XII, 27.
^ᵃᵈnote:Because ‘shall be poured out’ implies a single act.
^ᵃᵉnote:Viz., that of an animal sin-offering.
^ᵃᶠnote:That of a bird sin-offering; v. infra 64b.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. infra 66a.
^ᵃʰnote:Hence when he sprinkles it above he is definitely performing it incorrectly.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e. the residue. Hence when he sprinkles it below the line, he is only applying it where it would eventually come, and so he may make atonement. — Emended text (Sh. M).
^ᵃʲnote:I.e., the blood of the inner sacrifices.
^ᵃᵏnote:The residue is poured out at the base of the outer altar. — Emended text.
^ᵃˡnote:After the blood has been sprinkled on the inner altar there still remains an indispensable service to be performed.
^ᵃᵐnote:No indispensable rite remains to be performed after the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar.
^ᵃⁿnote:So we might argue.
^ᵃᵒnote:Viz., that its pouring out at the base of the altar is indispensable. This proves Rami b. Hama's assertion.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., the residue of the blood which is sprinkled on the inner altar.
^ᵃᵠnote:On the present hypothesis, and indispensable. The text is emended on the basis of Rashi.
^ᵃʳnote:Though the blood will be poured out below, this is not essential for the efficacy of the sacrifice.
^ᵃˢnote:The sacrifice is invalid, and the flesh may not be eaten. Why then is a Scriptural text necessary? Hence the premise of this argument, that the pouring out of the residue is essential, must be false!
^ᵃᵗnote:The blood must be sprinkled on the veil too.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lit., ‘he has done nothing’. — For notes v. supra 40a.
^ᵃᵛnote:But not in law. Both hold that all the four applications are indispensable, and that the pouring out of the residue is not indispensable. R. Akiba holds that the conclusion (atoning) illumines the beginning (make an end), whence we learn that the completion depends on atonement, i.e., on the four applications. R. Judah however maintains that ‘atoning’ might merely mean a single application, therefore (to avoid this conclusion) the interpretation must be reversed, and the beginning made to illumine the end: only when he quite makes an end, having completed the four applications, does he atone.
^ᵃʷnote:R. Akiba holds that it is not indispensable, and he interprets it thus: if he made atonement, i.e., performed all the rites for atonement as prescribed in that passage, he made an end. Thus the pouring out of the residue, which is not mentioned there, is not essential. R. Judah however interprets: Only when he made an end of all the rites, including those prescribed elsewhere (viz., the pouring out of the residue), did he make atonement.
^ᵃˣnote:If the residue of the blood was spilt after the four applications, another bullock must be slaughtered, and its blood first sprinkled within, and then the residue poured out at the base of the outer altar. But he cannot simply pour out all the blood at the base, for then it is not a residue, whereas a residue is indispensable. — Thus R. Joshua b. Levi holds that there is a view that the pouring out of the residue is indispensable.
^ᵃʸnote:That there is a teacher who maintains that it is indispensable.
^ᵃᶻnote:V. supra 42b.
^ᵇᵃnote:Viz., R. Akiba and R. Judah.
^ᵇᵇnote:In the case of R. Joshua b. Levi.
^ᵇᶜnote:Which need special mention here, for several have already been taught in the preceding Mishnah (supra 47a).