## Zevachim Daf 38b

###### Zevachim 38b:1
[Zevachim 38b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:1)

מַאי, לָאו אַפַּלְגֵיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ – כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: ״טְהַר טִיהֲרָא דְּיוֹמָא״? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא, אַגִּילּוּיֵיהּ; דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** referring **to** the **middle** of the side **of the altar, as people say: Clear noon [*tihara*],** that is the middle **of the day?** Accordingly, the root *tet*, *heh*, *reish* denotes the middle; in the one case, the middle of the day, and in the other case, halfway up the altar. Now, since the blood was sprinkled on the altar seven times, inevitably some of the blood landed above the midpoint and some of it landed below the midpoint. **Rava bar Sheila said: No,** that is not the meaning of *tohoro*. Rather, *tohoro* means **on the revealed** part, i.e., the top, of the altar, **as it is written: “Like the very clear [*latohar*] sky”** (Exodus 24:10). *Tohoro* is referring to the top of the altar when it has been revealed, after the ashes of the incense are cleared and the pure gold is visible.


###### Zevachim 38b:2
[Zevachim 38b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:2)

וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם! שִׁירַיִם לָא מְעַכְּבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks again: Is there not a case where some of the blood is presented above the red line and some of it is presented below? **But there is** the **remainder** of the blood, which is poured on the base of the altar even in the case of a sin offering, the main blood of which is placed on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara answers: The pouring of the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the altar **is not indispensable** for atonement. Blood that is indispensable for atonement is in no instance presented half above the red line and half below it.


###### Zevachim 38b:3
[Zevachim 38b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:3)

וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם הַפְּנִימִים, דְּאִיכָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְעַכְּבִי! בְּחַד מָקוֹם קָאָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues this line of questioning: **But there is the remainder** of the blood **of the inner** sin offerings, the main blood of which is sprinkled on the inner altar. The remainder of the blood of these offerings is poured on the base of the external altar, and **there is one who says** that this pouring of the blood is **indispensable** for atonement. The Gemara explains: When we said that there is no blood, half of which is presented above and half below, **we said** this **with regard to one place,** i.e., the same altar. The blood of inner sin offerings is sprinkled on the inner altar, while the remainder of that blood is poured on the base of the external altar. There is no case of blood, half of which is presented above and half of which is presented below on the same altar.


###### Zevachim 38b:4
[Zevachim 38b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:4)

תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת, וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתִּירוֹת וּמְפַגְּלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, in the case of a sin offering two placements facilitate atonement, while with regard to other offerings a single placement is sufficient. Beit Hillel disagree and say that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices after the fact. With regard to this issue, it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Beit Shammai say** that **two placements in** the case of **a sin offering, and one** placement **in** the case of other **offerings, they render** the offering **permitted** for eating since these actions facilitate atonement after the fact, despite the fact that blood was not placed on all four corners of the altar. **And** similarly **they render** the offering ***piggul*.** That is to say, if the priest placed two placements of the blood of a sin offering or one placement of the blood of any another offering, intending to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is *piggul*.


###### Zevachim 38b:5
[Zevachim 38b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:5)

בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכׇל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתֶּרֶת וּמְפַגֶּלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Beit Hillel say: One** placement **in** the case of **a sin offering, and** likewise **one** placement **in** the case of **all** the other **offerings,** if done with proper intent, renders the offering **permitted** for eating **and,** if done with improper intent, **renders** the offering ***piggul*.**


###### Zevachim 38b:6
[Zevachim 38b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:6)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Oshaya objects to this: If so, let** this *halakha* **be taught** in the fourth chapter of tractate *Eduyyot* **alongside** the other rare cases of **Beit Shammai’s leniencies and Beit Hillel’s stringencies.** According to Beit Hillel, a sin offering is *piggul* even if the priest intended to partake of it beyond its designated time even while performing a single placement, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that the offering is *piggul* only if he had this improper intent during two placements.


###### Zevachim 38b:7
[Zevachim 38b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כִּי אִיתְּשִׁיל – לְהֶתֵּירָא אִיתְּשִׁיל; דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rav Oshaya: **When** this question **was** initially **asked,** and the Sages stated their opinions concerning the matter, **it was asked with regard to the permission** to partake of the sin offering. In other words, the dispute arose as a result of an inquiry into the other relevant *halakha*, i.e., whether the priests may partake of a sin offering, the blood of which was placed only one time. In this case it is **Beit Shammai who are** more **stringent,** as they permit the meat of a sin offering only after two placements have been placed. For this reason, this case was not listed among the other leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.


###### Zevachim 38b:8
[Zevachim 38b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאוֹת – אֵינָן בָּאוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** Despite the fact that, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, the last **three placements in** the case of **a sin offering** are not indispensable to the atonement, they **may not be performed at night,** because the blood is invalidated at sunset. **And** these three placements **may be performed after** the **death** of the owner. If the owner of the offering died before any of the blood was placed on the altar, the blood may not be placed, and the offering is burned as a disqualified offering. But if he died after one placement, the priest may perform the other three placements, as he has already facilitated atonement by means of the first placement. **And** as it is a mitzva to perform these three placements on the altar, **one who offers** this blood **up** on an altar **outside** the Temple is **liable** to receive *karet*, the punishment received by one who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 38b:9
[Zevachim 38b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: יֵשׁ מֵהֶן כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּסוֹפוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says: There are some** respects in which the blood of the last three placements of a sin offering is treated **like** the blood presented **at the outset,** i.e., like the blood of the first placement, **and there are some** respects in which the blood of the last three placements is treated **like** the blood presented **at the end,** i.e., like the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.


###### Zevachim 38b:10
[Zevachim 38b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:10)

חוּץ, וְלַיְלָה, זָרוּת, וּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת, קֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, כִּיבּוּס, וְשִׁירַיִם – כִּתְחִלָּתָן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa elaborates: With regard to liability for presenting blood **outside** the Temple, **and** concerning the prohibition against presenting blood at **night,** and with regard to the disqualification of **a non-priest** from presenting blood and his liability for death at the hand of Heaven if he presents blood in the Temple, **and** with regard to the requirement that the blood that is to be presented must first be placed in **a service vessel,** and that the blood must be placed on the **corner** of the altar, **and** that the placement must be performed with the priest’s **finger,** and concerning the obligation to **launder** a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, **and** finally with regard to the requirement of pouring the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the altar, the last three placements are treated **like** blood presented at **the outset,** i.e., like the first placement.


###### Zevachim 38b:11
[Zevachim 38b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:11)

וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לָא שָׁרְיָא, וְלָא מְפַגְּלָא, וְלָא עָיְילָא לְגַוַּאי – כְּסוֹפָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** these last three placements **may be performed after** the **death** of the owner; and they do **not** render the offering **permitted** for eating, as that was already achieved by means of the first placement; **nor** do they **render** the offering ***piggul*** if during these placements the priest intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time; **and** similarly, they are **not** governed by the *halakha* that if the blood **enters inside** the Sanctuary the sin offering is disqualified. With regard to all these matters the blood of the last three placements is treated **like** the blood presented **at the end,** i.e., like the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.


###### Zevachim 38b:12
[Zevachim 38b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:12)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ? דִּתְנַן: נִיתַּז מִן הַצַּוָּאר עַל הַבֶּגֶד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִן הַקֶּרֶן וּמִן הַיְסוֹד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לְקֶרֶן – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, **Rav Pappa said: From where do I say** that this *halakha* applies even to the blood of the last three placements? It is **as we learned** in a mishna (93a): If the blood of a sin offering **sprayed** directly **from the neck** of the animal **onto a garment,** that garment **does not require laundering,** as the blood had never been received in a vessel. Likewise, if the blood sprayed onto the garment **from the corner** of the altar after having been placed there, **or from the base** of the altar after the remainder was poured there, the garment **does not require laundering.** It may be inferred from here that blood that sprayed from the corner of the altar does not require laundering. **But** blood that is **fit** to be placed **on the corner,** as it has not yet been placed, **requires laundering,** and the blood of the last three placements is indeed fit to be placed on the corner of the altar.


###### Zevachim 38b:13
[Zevachim 38b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:13)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, מִן הַיְסוֹד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס – הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לַיְסוֹד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס?! ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ כְּתִיב – פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁכְּבָר הוּזָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **But according to your reasoning,** one can claim in the same manner that it is only blood that sprayed **from the base** of the altar that **does not require laundering; but** blood **that is fit for the base** of the altar, i.e., what remains of the blood after it has been placed on the corners, **requires laundering.** This is difficult, as **it is written:** “And **when there will be sprinkled [*yizze*]** of its blood upon any garment” (Leviticus 6:20). The future form of the word *yizze* serves to **exclude** this blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar, **as it has already been sprinkled.**


###### Zevachim 38b:14
[Zevachim 38b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:14)

הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה; דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya, as we learned** in a mishna (110b) that **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** With regard to the **remainder of the blood** of an offering, **which** was to be poured at the base of the altar, if **one presented it outside** the Temple, he is **liable.** Since Rabbi Neḥemya treats the remainder of the blood as blood with regard to liability for a service performed outside the Temple, he also treats the remainder of the blood of a sin offering as blood with regard to laundering. Accordingly, Rav Pappa’s inference from the previously cited mishna is valid only according to Rabbi Neḥemya, but not according to the majority opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.


###### Zevachim 38b:15
[Zevachim 38b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/38b:15)

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – לְעִנְיַן הַעֲלָאָה, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵי אַאֵיבָרִים וּפְדָרִים; לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס – מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ?! אִין;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the proof even according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya: **Say that you heard** that **Rabbi Neḥemya** ruled in this manner **with regard to the offering up** of the remainder of the blood outside the Temple, **just as** is the case **with regard to limbs and fats.** Even though the offering of the limbs and fats is not indispensable for atonement, one who offers them outside the Temple is liable. But **did you** also **hear him** say this **with regard to laundering,** that one must launder a garment sprayed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering? The Gemara answers: **Yes,** we also heard Rabbi Neḥemya rule in this manner with regard to laundering.