Commentary for Zevachim 103:15

וסבר רבי ישמעאל מיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב והתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא ה, ט) והנשאר בדם ימצה והנשאר ימצה

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁹</span> needs the base; that whose blood enters within both as a statutory obligation and as a regulation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁰</span> is it not logical that it needs the base?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²¹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²²</span> to teach you that [the pouring out of] the residue is not indispensable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since this is given as R. Ishmael's view, it supports R. Papa's thesis supra.');">²³</span> 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,

Explore commentary for Zevachim 103:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.