## Zevachim Daf 39a

###### Zevachim 39a:1
[Zevachim 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:1)

וְהָתַנְיָא: דָּמִים הַטְּעוּנִין יְסוֹד – טְעוּנִין כִּיבּוּס, וּמַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is as **it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **blood that requires** the **base** of the altar, presumably a reference to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, which must be poured on the base of the altar, it **requires laundering; and** improper **intent is effective with regard to it,** i.e., if the priest poured such blood with the intent to partake of the sacrificial meat beyond its designated time, the offering is *piggul*; **and one who offers it up outside** the Temple is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 39a:2
[Zevachim 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:2)

וְדָמִים הַנִּשְׁפָּכִין לָאַמָּה – אֵין טְעוּנִין כִּיבּוּס, וְאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, with regard to **blood that is poured into the** Temple courtyard **drain** that passed through the Temple and emptied into the Kidron River, which is blood that has become disqualified, it **does not require laundering, and** improper **intent is not effective with regard to it, and one who offers it up outside** the Temple is **exempt.**


###### Zevachim 39a:3
[Zevachim 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:3)

מַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר מַעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא; וְקָאָמַר: טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: About **whom did you learn that he said** that **one who offers up** the remainder of the blood **outside** the Temple **is liable? It is Rabbi Neḥemya** who says this, **and he states** in this *baraita* that a garment that was sprayed with such blood **requires laundering.**


###### Zevachim 39a:4
[Zevachim 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:4)

וּמַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: יָצְאוּ שִׁירַיִם וְהַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין, שֶׁאֵין מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה – שֶׁאֵין מַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is** improper **intent effective with regard to** blood that must be poured on the base of the altar? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* discussing the intent that renders an offering *piggul*: The possibility of *piggul* applies only with regard to a service that is indispensable for atonement. This serves to **exclude** pouring the **remainder** of the blood on the altar **and burning** the **sacrificial portions** on the altar, actions **that are not indispensable for atonement,** concerning which the *halakha* is **that** improper **intent is not effective with regard to them.**


###### Zevachim 39a:5
[Zevachim 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:5)

כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּשָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **when that** *baraita* **is taught,** stating that blood that requires the base requires laundering, it is not referring to the remainder of the blood after the placements have been completed. Instead, it is referring **to** the blood that is to be used for the last **three placements** of the blood **of a sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 39a:6
[Zevachim 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:6)

אִי הָכִי, טְעוּנִין יְסוֹד?! לְקֶרֶן אָזְלִי! אֵימָא: נִיטְעָנִין יְסוֹד. וּמַחְשָׁבָה מוֹעֶלֶת בָּהֶן?! הָאָמְרַתְּ: לָא שַׁרְיָא וְלָא מְפַגְּלָא וְלָא עָיְילָא לְגַוַּאי – כְּסוֹפָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** is it correct to describe this blood as **requiring** the **base** of the altar? After all, this blood **goes to the corner** of the altar, not the base. The Gemara answers: **Say** that this means: Blood that becomes **required** for the **base,** i.e., blood that in the end, after the placements are completed, will be poured on the base of the altar. The Gemara further asks: **But is** improper **intent effective with regard to** the blood of the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering? **Didn’t you say** that this blood does **not render** the offering **permitted** for eating, **nor** does it **render** the offering ***piggul*, and** it is **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 39a:7
[Zevachim 39a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:7)

אֶלָּא כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּדָמִים הַפְּנִימִיִּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather, when that** *baraita* **is taught,** stating that blood requiring the base requires laundering, and improper intent is effective with regard to it, and one who presents of it outside the Temple is liable, it is indeed referring to the remainder of the blood after the placements have been completed. It is stated not with regard to the remainder of the blood of a standard sin offering, but **with regard to** the remainder of **the blood of inner** sin offerings, which are brought on the inner altar located inside the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 39a:8
[Zevachim 39a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:8)

אֲבָל בְּדָמִים הַחִיצוֹנִים מַאי, פָּטוּר?! אַדְּתָנֵי דָּמִים הַנִּשְׁפָּכִין לָאַמָּה; לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּדָמִים הַפְּנִימִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּדָמִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that is the case, **with regard to** the remainder of **the blood of external** sin offerings that are brought on the external altar, **what** is the *halakha*? Is one who presents them outside the Temple **exempt?** If so, **rather than teaching** the *halakha* of disqualified **blood that is poured into the** Temple courtyard **drain, let** the *baraita* **distinguish and teach** the *halakha* **within the** case of the remainder of the blood **itself,** in the following manner: **In what** case **is this statement said? In** a case of **the blood of** sin offerings brought on the **inner** altar. **But in** the case of **the blood of** sin offerings brought on the **external** altar, one who offers up such an offering outside the Temple is **exempt.**


###### Zevachim 39a:9
[Zevachim 39a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:9)

הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב; וְלָא מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא פְּטוּרֵי לְבַהֲדֵי תְּלָתָא חִיּוּבֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* could not have made such a distinction, for in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** ruling? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya, who says:** With regard to the **remainder of the blood** of a sin offering brought on the external altar, in a case **where one presented it outside** the Temple, he is **liable. And** therefore, were the *tanna* to contrast the *halakha* of the blood of sin offerings brought on the external altar with that of the blood of sin offerings brought on the inner altar, **he would not** have been able to **teach three** rulings of **exemptions corresponding to three** rulings of **liabilities,** as Rabbi Neḥemya maintains that even with regard to the remainder of the blood of a sin offering brought on the external altar, if one presents it outside the Temple he is liable. Therefore, the *tanna* preferred to compare the *halakhot* of the remainder of the blood of inner sin offerings to the disqualified blood that is poured into the Temple courtyard drain, so that he could list three lenient rulings alongside three stringent ones.


###### Zevachim 39a:10
[Zevachim 39a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:10)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: מִן הַקֶּרֶן – מַמָּשׁ, מִן הַיְסוֹד – מִן הָרָאוּי לַיְסוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Rav Pappa, that a garment sprayed by blood from the last three placements of the blood of a sin offering requires laundering, and to his proof from the mishna that states that if the blood of a sin offering sprayed onto a garment from the corner of the altar or from the base of the altar, the garment does not require laundering. **Ravina says,** in answer to the objection raised against Rav Pappa above, that according to Rav Pappa the mishna (93a) should be understood as follows: The term: **From the corner,** means from the corner, **literally,** after the blood was placed there, and therefore Rav Pappa could infer from this that blood that is fit to be placed on the corner, including the blood to be used for the last three sprinklings, requires laundering. But the term: **From the base** of the altar, does not mean from the base, literally. Rather, it means: **From** blood **that is fit for the base** of the altar, i.e., from the remainder of the blood, which is to be poured on the base.


###### Zevachim 39a:11
[Zevachim 39a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר גַּזָּא לְרָבִינָא: אֵימָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי רָאוּי הוּא! הַאי מַאי? הַשְׁתָּא רָאוּי לַקֶּרֶן – אָמְרַתְּ לָא; רָאוּי לַיְסוֹד מִיבַּעְיָא?! אֶלָּא מִן הַקֶּרֶן – מִן הַקֶּרֶן מַמָּשׁ, מִן הַיְסוֹד – מִן הָרָאוּי לַיְסוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Taḥlifa bar Gazza said to Ravina:** One can **say** a different explanation, that both **this and that,** i.e., the term: From the corner, and the term: From the base, are referring to blood that **is fit** for the corner or the base, in which case the mishna teaches that a garment sprayed by the blood that was to be used for the last three placements of a sin offering does not require laundering, contrary to the opinion of Rav Pappa. Ravina replied: **What is this** claim? **Now** that **you say** that blood which is **fit for the corner** does **not** require laundering, **is** it **necessary** to state that the same applies to blood that is merely **fit for the base** of the altar? That ruling would be unnecessary. **Rather,** it must be that the term: **From the corner,** means **from the corner, literally,** i.e., that the blood has already been placed there, whereas the term: **From the base,** means **from** blood **that is fit for the base,** i.e., from the remainder of the blood, which is to be poured on the base.


###### Zevachim 39a:12
[Zevachim 39a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:12)

כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָשָׂה כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה״ – מָה בָּא לִלְמוֹד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **all** the offerings **whose** blood is to be **placed on the inner altar,** which are the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the goat for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, if the priest omitted even one of the placements, it is as though he did not facilitate atonement. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah first discusses the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest and afterward the bull for an unwitting communal sin, concerning which it states: “And he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:20). It may be asked: This phrase: **“And he shall do…as he did,” what** does this **come to teach?** All the details stated with regard to the first bull, i.e., that of the anointed priest, seem to be stated explicitly with regard to the second bull as well.


###### Zevachim 39a:13
[Zevachim 39a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:13)

לִכְפּוֹל בְּהַזָּאָתוֹ; וְלָמַד שֶׁאִם חִיסַּר אַחַת מִכׇּל הַמַּתָּנוֹת – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְּלוּם. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַתַּן שֶׁבַע, שֶׁמְּעַכְּבוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם; מַתַּן אַרְבַּע מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, the verse comes **to repeat the** *halakha* of the **sprinkling of** the blood, as though it were written twice with regard to the same bull. This repetition of the *halakha* indicates that the sprinkling is indispensable, thereby **teaching that if** the priest **omitted one of the placements he has done nothing. I have** a derivation **only** with regard to the **seven placements** on the Curtain separating between the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, that they are indispensable, **as** these seven **are indispensable in all cases,** as the Gemara will explain (40a). **From where** is it derived that the same applies to the **four placements** on the inner altar? **The verse states: “So shall he do”** (Leviticus 4:20).


###### Zevachim 39a:14
[Zevachim 39a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/39a:14)

״לַפָּר״ – זֶה פַּר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: The verse states: “And he shall do **with the bull”** (Leviticus 4:20); **this** alludes to a different bull whose service is similar, namely **the bull of Yom Kippur.**