Zevachim

but what is not left is not drained out?1 — 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]:2 [this teaches,] only that [sin-offering] whose blood was sprinkled above [the red line],3 but not that whose blood was applied below.4 Say: whence did you come [to this]?5 From the implication of what is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [. . . and thou shalt eat the flesh],6 we learn that if [the blood of] those [sacrifices] which need four applications was presented with one application [only], it has made atonement;7 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,8 and blood is prescribed below:9 as the blood which is prescribed below does not atone if it is sprinkled above,10 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;11 will you say the same of the blood which should be sprinkled above, seeing that it will eventually [find its way] below?12 Let the inner blood13 prove it, which will eventually come without,14 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.15 Will you say thus of the upper [blood], where the horns complete it?16 [and] since the horns complete it, if he sprinkled it below, it is fit.17 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]!18 Said Raba to him: If so, you could infer it a minori: if the blood of the inner sacrifices,19 of which eventually the residue is obligatory without,20 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,21 is it not logical that if he applied it at the outset below he does not make atonement?22 — Rather [the meaning is this]: Not the altar alone completes it, but also the veil 23 . 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?24 Wherein do they differ? — R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi [disagree]. One maintains: They differ on the mode of interpretation.25 The other maintains: They differ as to whether the [pouring out of the] residue is indispensable.26 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.27 But does R.Johanan not hold this view?28 Surely R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the residue is indispensable?29 But you must say ‘In accordance with the view’, but not that of these Tannaim.30 Then here too,31 ‘on the view’ does not refer to that of these Tannaim. MISHNAH. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIN-OFFERINGS (THESE ARE THE PUBLIC SIN-OFFERINGS:32 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? and indispensable. (sprinkling) appertaining to a sin-offering; only then may he eat it. shew that it may not? and so he may make atonement. — Emended text (Sh. M). of this argument, that the pouring out of the residue is essential, must be false! 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. 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. 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.