Quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 72:20

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן מנין לניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתנן במתנה אחת שכיפר תלמוד לומר (דברים יב כז) "ודם זבחיך ישפך" והאי להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא

This proves that though they are not fit for eating at all, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. So here too, though they are not fit for eating, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. Yet it is not so: there the emurim of lesser sacrifices are fit for the Most-High;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to be burnt on the altar.');">¹⁵</span> which excludes unroasted flesh of the Passover-offering and the loaves of the thanks-offering of which no separation was made, which are fit neither for the Most-High nor for man. .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed addition is omitted in some MSS.');">¹⁶</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS TO BE SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice is valid, though in the first place two applications are required.');">¹⁷</span> BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: IN THE CASE OF THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT. THEREFORE IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION IN THE PROPER MANNER AND THE SECOND [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME, HE HAS ATONED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first alone sufficed. - According to Beth Shammai this holds good of all sacrifices except a sin-offering, and according to Beth Hillel that too is not excepted.');">¹⁸</span> AND IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME AND THE SECOND WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second intention does not neutralise the first.');">¹⁹</span> WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] OMITTED ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS, HE HAS NOT ATONED; THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL IN THE PROPER MANNER BUT ONE IN AN IMPROPER MANNER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with wrongful intention.');">²⁰</span> IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one application is insufficient to make the sacrifice fit; - he holds that a sacrifice cannot be made piggul through a service which is incomplete in itself to make the sacrifice fit.');">²¹</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that if [the priest] made one application in the case of those [bloods] which are to be sprinkled on the outer altar, he has made atonement? From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27. - This implies a single pouring out.');">²²</span> Now, is this text required for that purpose? Surely it is needed for what was taught:

Explore quoting%20commentary for Zevachim 72:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.