Zevachim 103

דבראי לגואי ודגואי לבראי הא אין לו יסוד לפנימי עצמו

[the residue of] the inner [offerings] on the outer [altar], and [that of] the outer [offerings] on the inner [altar];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹</span> surely the inner altar had no base!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it must be interpreted as stated.');">²</span>

או אינו אלא מזבח של עולה יהא ליסוד מי כתיב אל יסוד העולה אל יסוד מזבח העולה כתיב

'Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering! But written, 'at the base of the burnt-offering'? surely it is written, 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span>

אי הוה כתיב אל יסוד העולה הוה אמינא בזקיפה אל יסוד השתא דכתיב אל יסוד מזבח העולה אגגו דיסוד

- If 'at the base of the burnt-offering' were written, I would say [that it means] on the vertical [wall] of the base;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> now that it is written, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, it denotes on the roof [top] of the base.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is hard by the altar itself.');">⁵</span>

א"ר ישמעאל גג יסוד למה לי קרא ק"ו הוא ומה שירי חטאת שאינה מכפרת טעונה גג יסוד תחלת עולה שמכפרת אינו דין שטעונה גג יסוד

[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 require the roof [of the base]?

אמר רבי עקיבא ומה שירי חטאת שאין מכפרין ואין באין לכפר טעונה גג יסוד תחלת עולה שמכפרת ובאה לכפר אינו דין שטעונה גג יסוד אם כן מה ת"ל אל יסוד מזבח העולה תן יסוד למזבח של עולה

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'?

מאי בינייהו אמר רב אדא בר אהבה שירים מעכבים איכא בינייהו מר סבר מעכבי ומר סבר לא מעכבי

To teach: apply [th laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering. Wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael and R. Akiba.');">⁶</span>

רב פפא אמר דכולי עלמא שירים אין מעכבים והכא במיצוי חטאת העוף מעכב קא מיפלגי מר סבר מעכב ומר סבר לא מעכב

- 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba holds the latter view; hence he emphasises that it does not come for atonement.');">⁷</span>

תניא כוותיה דרב פפא (ויקרא ד, ז) ואת כל (הדם) [הפר] ישפך מה ת"ל הפר לימד על פר יום הכיפורים שטעון מתן דמים ליסוד דברי רבי

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. V, 9: and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar.');">⁸</span> one master holds that it is indispensable, while the other master holds that it is not indispensable.

אמר רבי ישמעאל קל וחומר ומה אם מי שאין נכנס דמו לפנים חובה טעון יסוד מי שנכנס דמו לפנים חובה אינו דין שטעון יסוד

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 7. The text refers to the anointed priest's sin-offering.');">⁹</span> Why is 'the bullock' stated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is apparently superfluous, since the whole passage deals with it.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבי עקיבא ומה מי שאין דמו נכנס לפני ולפנים בין לחובה בין למצוה טעון יסוד מי שנכנס דמו חובה לפני ולפנים אינו דין שטעון יסוד

It teaches that the Day of Atonement bullock must have its blood poured out at the base:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The bullock', being superfluous, extends this law to another bullock.');">¹¹</span> that is the view of R'Akiba.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text. Cur. edd. Rabbi.');">¹²</span>

יכול יעכבנו ת"ל (ויקרא טז, כ) וכלה מכפר את הקדש שלמו כל הכפרות כולן דברי רבי ישמעאל

Said R'Ishmael: [This is inferred] a fortior if that whose blood does not enter within as a statutory obligation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹³</span> needs the base, that whose blood enters within as a statutory obligation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Day of Atonement bullock is a statutory offering, whether the High Priest had sinned or not.');">¹⁴</span>

קל וחומר לפר כהן משיח (משעיר נשיא) מעתה ומה מי שאין נכנס דמו לפנים לא חובה ולא מצוה טעון יסוד מי שנכנס דמו לפנים בין לחובה בין למצוה אינו דין שטעון יסוד

is it not logical that it needs the base? Said R'Akiba: If that whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Holy of Holies.');">¹⁵</span>

יכול יעכבנו תלמוד לומר ואת כל (הדם) [הפר] ישפך

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the pouring out of the blood of the Day of Atonement bullock at the base.');">¹⁶</span>

נתקו הכתוב לעשה ועשאו שירי מצוה לומר לך שירים אין מעכבין

therefore it states, And he shall make an end of atoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 20.');">¹⁷</span> which teaches, All the atoning services are [now] complete:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span>

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,