Commentary for Zevachim 104:18

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חטאות הצבור והיחיד אלו הן חטאות הצבור שעירי ראשי חדשים ושל מועדות שחיטתן בצפון וקיבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון ודמן טעון ארבע מתנות על ארבע קרנות כיצד

One maintains: They differ on the mode of interpretation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁵</span> The other maintains: They differ as to whether the [pouring out of the] residue is indispensable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁷</span> But does R'Johanan not hold this view?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is a teacher who maintains that it is indispensable.');">²⁸</span> Surely R'Johanan said: R'Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the residue is indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 42b.');">²⁹</span> But you must say 'In accordance with the view', but not that of these Tannaim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., R. Akiba and R. Judah.');">³⁰</span> Then here too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of R. Joshua b. Levi.');">³¹</span> 'on the view' does not refer to that of these Tannaim. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIN-OFFERINGS (THESE ARE THE PUBLIC SIN-OFFERINGS:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which need special mention here, for several have already been taught in the preceding Mishnah (supra 47a) .');">³²</span> 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?

Explore commentary for Zevachim 104:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.