Zevachim 104

ושאינו נשאר לא ימצה תרי תנאי ואליבא דר' ישמעאל

but what is not left is not drained out?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all the blood may be used in sprinkling so that nothing is left for draining. Hence draining cannot be essential and indispensable.');">¹</span> - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R'Ishmael's opinion.

אמר רמי בר חמא האי תנא סבר שירים מעכבי דתניא (ויקרא ו, יט) הכהן המחטא אותה אותה שניתן דמה למעלה ולא אותה שניתן דמה למטה

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]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 18, 19. 'Offereth it for sin,' Heb. ha-mehatte, is understood to mean, who correctly performs all the rites (sprinkling) appertaining to a sin-offering; only then may he eat it.');">²</span>

אמרת וכי מאין באתה מכלל שנאמר (דברים יב, כז) ודם זבחיך ישפך על מזבח וגו' למדנו לניתנין במתן ארבע שאם נתנן במתנה אחת כיפר יכול אף הניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה כיפר

[this teaches,] only that [sin-offering] whose blood was sprinkled above [the red line],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is necessary for a sin-offering, V. p. 48, n. 1.');">³</span> but not that whose blood was applied below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh may not be eaten.');">⁴</span>

ודין הוא נאמרו דמים למעלה ונאמרו דמים למטן מה דמים האמורים למטן שנתנן למעלן לא כיפר אף דמים האמורים למעלן אם נתן למטה לא כיפר

Say: whence did you come [to this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why would you think that the flesh may be eaten even if the blood was not properly sprinkled, that you need a text to shew that it may not?');">⁵</span> From the implication of what is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [.

לא אם אמרת בתחתונים שניתנין בנתינה למעלה שאין סופן למעלן לא כיפר תאמר בעליונים שנתנן למטה שיש מהן קרב למטה

and thou shalt eat the flesh],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27.');">⁶</span> we learn that if [the blood of] those [sacrifices] which need four applications was presented with one application [only], it has made atonement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because 'shall be poured out' implies a single act.');">⁷</span>

דמים (שיריים) הפנימיים יוכיחו שיש מהן קרב בחוץ ואם נתנן בתחלה בחוץ לא כיפר

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that of an animal sin-offering.');">⁸</span>

לא אם אמרת בדמים הפנימיים שאין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן תאמר בעליונים שהרי קרנות ממרקות אותן אם נתנן למטה כשרים

and blood is prescribed below:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That of a bird sin-offering; v. infra 64b.');">⁹</span> as the blood which is prescribed below does not atone if it is sprinkled above,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 66a.');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ל אותה אותה שניתן דמים למעלה ולא שניתן דמה למטה

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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence when he sprinkles it above he is definitely performing it incorrectly.');">¹¹</span>

מאי שאין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן לאו אלו שיריים

will you say the same of the blood which should be sprinkled above, seeing that it will eventually [find its way] below?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the residue. Hence when he sprinkles it below the line, he is only applying it where it would eventually come, and so he may make atonement. - Emended text (Sh. M) .');">¹²</span> Let the inner blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blood of the inner sacrifices.');">¹³</span>

א"ל רבא אי הכי תיתי בק"ו

prove it, which will eventually come without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The residue is poured out at the base of the outer altar. - Emended text.');">¹⁴</span> and yet if he applied it in the first place without, he did not make atonement.

מה שיריים הפנימיים שסופן חובה בחוץ עשאן בתחלה בחוץ לא כיפר הניתנין למעלה שאין סופן חובה למטה ועשאן בתחלה למטה אינו דין שלא כיפר

No: if you speak of the inner blood, that is because the inner altar does not complete it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the blood has been sprinkled on the inner altar there still remains an indispensable service to be performed.');">¹⁵</span> Will you say thus of the upper [blood], where the horns complete it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No indispensable rite remains to be performed after the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אין מזבח הפנימי ממרקן בלבד אלא פרוכת

[and] since the horns complete it, if he sprinkled it below, it is fit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So we might argue.');">¹⁷</span> 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.

תנו רבנן (ויקרא טז, כ) וכלה מכפר אם כיפר כלה ואם לא כיפר לא כלה דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו רבי יהודה מפני מה לא נאמר אם כלה כיפר אם לא כלה לא כיפר שאם חיסר אחת מכל המתנות לא עשה ולא כלום

Now, what is the meaning of 'because the inner altar does not complete it'? Surely it must refer to the residue [of the blood]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that its pouring out at the base of the altar is indispensable. This proves Rami b. Hama's assertion.');">¹⁸</span>

מאי בינייהו רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי חד אמר משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו וחד אמר שיריים מעכבין איכא בינייהו

Said Raba to him: If so, you could infer it a minori: if the blood o the inner sacrifices,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the residue of the blood which is sprinkled on the inner altar.');">¹⁹</span> of which eventually the residue is obligatory without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the present hypothesis, and indispensable. The text is emended on the basis of Rashi.');">²⁰</span>

תסתיים דר' יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר שיריים דמעכבי דא"ר יהושע בן לוי לדברי האומר שיריים מעכבין מביא פר אחד ומתחיל בתחלה בפנים

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the blood will be poured out below, this is not essential for the efficacy of the sacrifice.');">²¹</span> is it not logical that if he applied it at the outset below he does not make atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice is invalid, and the flesh may not be eaten. Why then is a Scriptural text necessary? Hence the premise of this argument, that the pouring out of the residue is essential, must be false!');">²²</span>

אטו ר' יוחנן לית ליה הא סברא והאמר ר' יוחנן תנא ר' נחמיה כדברי האומר שירים מעכבין

- Rather [the meaning is this]: Not the altar alone completes it, but also the veil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood must be sprinkled on the veil too.');">²³</span> 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.

אלא כדברי האומר ולאו להני תנאי הכא נמי כדברי האומר ולאו להני תנאי:

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he has done nothing'. - For notes v. supra 40a.');">²⁴</span> Wherein do they differ? - R'Johanan and R'Joshua B'Levi [disagree].

<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?