## Zevachim Daf 51a

###### Zevachim 51a:1
[Zevachim 51a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:1)

מְטַהֶרֶת טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ; אַף מְלִיקָה, שֶׁמַּכְשַׁרְתָּהּ בַּאֲכִילָה – תְּטַהֵר טְרֵיפָתָהּ מִטּוּמְאָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** it **purifies its *tereifa* from its impurity, so too** its **pinching, which permits** bird offerings **with regard to consumption, should purify its *tereifa* from its impurity.**


###### Zevachim 51a:2
[Zevachim 51a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:2)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: דַּיָּהּ כְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה – שֶׁשְּׁחִיטָתָהּ מְטַהַרְתָּהּ, וְלֹא מְלִיקָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says:** Although one can derive from the case of an animal that slaughter purifies the *tereifa* of a bird from its impurity, that derivation cannot be extended to pinching. The same restriction that applies to every *a fortiori* inference, namely, that a *halakha* derived by means of an *a fortiori* inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived, applies here: **It is sufficient** for the halakhic status of the carcass of a bird that is a *tereifa* to be **like** that of **the carcass of an animal** of **a kosher** species that is a *tereifa*; i.e., **that** only **its slaughter purifies it, but not its pinching.**


###### Zevachim 51a:3
[Zevachim 51a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:3)

וְלָא הִיא; הָתָם תֶּיהְוֵי הִיא, מִשְּׁחִיטָה דְּחוּלִּין קָאָתְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **And** that **is not so. Let it remain there,** i.e., one cannot learn from it, as that is a case that **comes from the slaughter of non-sacred** animals. The *halakha* of the pinching of a consecrated bird is derived through a paradigm from the *halakha* of the slaughter of a non-sacred bird, and the *halakha* of the slaughter of a non-sacred bird is derived through an *a fortiori* inference from the *halakha* of the slaughter of a non-sacred animal. Outside of the realm of consecrated matters there is no question that a matter derived via one of the hermeneutical principles can then teach its *halakha* via another principle. The entire question under discussion is only with regard to the realm of consecrated matters.


###### Zevachim 51a:4
[Zevachim 51a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:4)

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּבִנְיַן אָב, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ וּבִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה וּבְקַל וָחוֹמֶר וּבְבִנְיַן אָב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **What is** the *halakha* as to whether **a matter derived via a paradigm** can **teach** its *halakha* to another matter **via a juxtaposition or via a verbal analogy or via an *a fortiori*** inference **or via a paradigm?**


###### Zevachim 51a:5
[Zevachim 51a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:5)

פְּשׁוֹט מִיהָא חֲדָא – מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ: לָן בַּדָּם – כָּשֵׁר? שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן בָּאֵימוּרִין כָּשֵׁר. לָן בְּאֵימוּרִין כָּשֵׁר – שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן בַּבָּשָׂר כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: **Resolve at least one** of those questions. The Gemara cites a lengthy *baraita* before stating the resolution inferred from that *baraita*. **For what** reason **did** the Sages **say** that **in** the case of **blood left overnight** it is **fit,** i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is **as** it is **in** the case of **sacrificial portions,** where if they are **left overnight** they are **fit.** From where is it derived that **in** the case of **sacrificial portions** which are **left overnight,** they are **fit?** This is **as** it is **in** the case of **meat,** where if it is **left overnight** it is **fit,** because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.


###### Zevachim 51a:6
[Zevachim 51a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:6)

יוֹצֵא – הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering that has **left** the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, **since** an offering that **leaves** its area is **fit in** the case of an offering brought on a private **altar.**


###### Zevachim 51a:7
[Zevachim 51a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:7)

טָמֵא – הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר בַּעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering that has become **ritually impure** is placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, **since** one is **permitted** to offer an impure offering **in** the case of **communal rites,** i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.


###### Zevachim 51a:8
[Zevachim 51a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:8)

חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצֶּה לְפִיגּוּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that in the case of an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it **beyond its** designated **time [*piggul*],** if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? The *halakha* applies there **since** the sprinkling of its blood **effects acceptance** of the offering notwithstanding **its** status of ***piggul*.** The status of *piggul* takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it need not be removed from the altar.


###### Zevachim 51a:9
[Zevachim 51a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:9)

חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְהוּקַּשׁ לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that in the case of an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it **outside its** designated **area,** if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived by a paradigm, **since** it is **juxtaposed to** an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it **beyond its** designated **time.**


###### Zevachim 51a:10
[Zevachim 51a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:10)

שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ דָּמָן – בְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלִין דַּחֲזוּ לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that in the case of an offering for **which** priests who are **disqualified collected and sprinkled its blood,** if it was placed on the altar it need not be removed? This is derived **from** the *halakha* of **these** priests who are generally **disqualified** because they are impure, yet **who are fit to** perform the **communal rites,** i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure. In any event, the *halakha* of the sacrificial portions was derived via a paradigm from the *halakha* of meat that was left overnight, and then the *halakha* of blood was derived via a paradigm from the *halakha* of the sacrificial portions. Evidently, a matter derived via a paradigm can teach its *halakha* to another matter via a paradigm.


###### Zevachim 51a:11
[Zevachim 51a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:11)

וְכִי דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ, מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the derivations of the *baraita*: **But can one deduce** the *halakha* of **a matter that is not fit,** i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, **from** the *halakha* of **a matter that is fit,** i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted to be eaten for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the *baraita* derive the *halakha* of meat that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the *halakha* of a private altar, which has no sacred area surrounding it?


###### Zevachim 51a:12
[Zevachim 51a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:12)

תַּנָּא מִ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעוֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סָמֵיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ***tanna* relied on** the verse: “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: **This is the law of the burnt offering:** It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall thereby be kept burning” (Leviticus 6:2), which **amplified** it, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the *baraita* are mere supports for those *halakhot*.


###### Zevachim 51a:13
[Zevachim 51a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:13)

שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – הַהוּא דְּפָגַע בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches with regard to the sin offerings whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary: As to **the remainder of the blood** which is left after the sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that it must be poured on the western base? The Gemara answers: **The verse states** with regard to the bull offering of the High Priest: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the corners of the altar of sweet incense before the Lord, which is in the Tent of Meeting; and all the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out **at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”** (Leviticus 4:7). This means that he must pour it on **that** base **which he encounters first** when he leaves the Tent of Meeting, which is the western base.


###### Zevachim 51a:14
[Zevachim 51a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:14)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה״ – וְלֹא יְסוֹד מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: There are three verses that contain the same phrase. With regard to pouring the remainder of the blood of a bull offering of the High Priest, the verse states: “All the remaining blood of the bull he shall pour out **at the base of the altar of burnt offering”** (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that it must be on the base of the external altar, **but not** on **the base of the inner altar,** where he had sprinkled the blood.


###### Zevachim 51a:15
[Zevachim 51a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:15)

״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה״ – אֵין לוֹ יְסוֹד לַפְּנִימִי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: With regard to the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin the verse states: “And he shall sprinkle the blood upon the corners of the altar which is before the Lord, that is in the Tent of Meeting, and all the remaining blood shall he pour out **at the base of the altar of burnt offering,** which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:18). This teaches that the **inner altar itself has no base** at all.


###### Zevachim 51a:16
[Zevachim 51a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:16)

״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה״ – תֵּן יְסוֹד לַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, the verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out **at the base of the altar of the burnt offering”** (Leviticus 4:25). This teaches that you must **give a base to the altar of** the **burnt offering,** i.e., that the remainder of any blood placed on the altar must be poured on the base.


###### Zevachim 51a:17
[Zevachim 51a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:17)

אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִזְבְּחָהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה – יְהֵא לַיְסוֹד? אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; מָה שִׁירַיִים, שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין – טְעוּנִין יְסוֹד; תְּחִלַּת עוֹלָה, שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה יְסוֹד?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Or** perhaps it **is not** so, but **rather** the verse serves to teach that any sprinkling of blood on the corners of the **altar of** the **burnt offering will be** done on a part of the altar where there is **a base. Rabbi Yishmael said:** There is no need for the verse to teach that *halakha*, because it can be derived via **an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** the **remainder** of the blood, **which does not effect atonement, requires** pouring on the **base** of the altar, with regard to **the initial** sprinkling of the blood **of a burnt offering, which effects atonement, is it not logical that it requires** a part of the altar where there is **a base?**


###### Zevachim 51a:18
[Zevachim 51a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מָה שִׁירַיִים, שֶׁאֵין מְכַפְּרִין וְאֵין בָּאִין לְכַפָּרָה – טְעוּנָה יְסוֹד; תְּחִלַּת עוֹלָה, שֶׁמְּכַפֶּרֶת וּבָאָה לְכַפָּרָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁטְּעוּנָה יְסוֹד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Rabbi Akiva said: Just as** the **remainder** of the blood, **which does not effect atonement and does not come for atonement,** nevertheless **requires** pouring on the **base** of the altar, with regard to **the initial** sprinkling of the blood **of a burnt offering, which effects atonement and comes for atonement, is it not logical that it requires** a part of the altar where there is **a base?**


###### Zevachim 51a:19
[Zevachim 51a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:19)

אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה״? תֵּן יְסוֹד לְמִזְבְּחָהּ שֶׁל עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: **If so, why** must **the verse state: “At the base of the altar of burnt offering”** (Leviticus 4:25)? It is to teach that you must **give a base to the altar of** the **burnt offering,** i.e., that the remainder of the blood of the offering must be poured on the base.


###### Zevachim 51a:20
[Zevachim 51a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:20)

אָמַר מָר: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח״ – וְלֹא יְסוֹד מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי. הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! מֵ״אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses this *baraita*. **The Master says:** The verse states: **“At the base of the altar** of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 4:18). This teaches that it must be on the base of the external altar, **but not the base of the inner altar.** The Gemara asks: **Isn’t that necessary for the matter itself,** to teach that the remainder of the blood must be poured onto the base of the external altar? The Gemara answers: That *halakha* is **derived from: “Which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”** (Leviticus 4:18), referring to the external altar. Therefore, the verse mentions the altar of burnt offering to exclude the base of the inner altar.


###### Zevachim 51a:21
[Zevachim 51a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/51a:21)

״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches with regard to the sin offering of a king: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out **at the base of the altar of burnt offering”** (Leviticus 4:25).