## Zevachim Daf 52b

###### Zevachim 52b:1
[Zevachim 52b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:1)

וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁאָר לֹא יִמָּצֵה! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And that which does not remain,** i.e., if there is no blood remaining, **he shall not squeeze** it **out.** This indicates that failure to squeeze the blood does not disqualify the offering. The Gemara answers: There are **two *tanna’im*, and** they disagree **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael.**


###### Zevachim 52b:2
[Zevachim 52b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:2)

אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר: שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִי. דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַכֹּהֵן הַמְחַטֵּא אֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its discussion of the remainder of the blood. **Rami bar Ḥama says: This** following ***tanna* holds** that failure to pour the **remainder** of the blood of offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary **disqualifies** the offering, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **“The priest that sacrifices it for sin** shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19). The verse states the word “it” to teach that **it,** the offering **whose blood was sprinkled** correctly, **above** the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. **But** this is **not** so for an offering **whose blood was sprinkled below** the red line, which is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 52b:3
[Zevachim 52b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:3)

אָמַרְתָּ: וְכִי מֵאַיִן בָּאתָה? מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ עַל מִזְבַּח וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לַנִּיתָּנִין בְּמַתַּן אַרְבַּע, שֶׁאִם נְתָנָן בְּמַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר. יָכוֹל אַף הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה כִּיפֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **You said** this, **but from where did you come?** In other words, why would one think that such an offering is valid, so that the verse needs to teach that it is not? The *baraita* explains: **From the fact that it is stated:** “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God; **and the blood of your offerings shall be poured out against the altar** of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:27), **we learned** that **with regard to** those offerings whose blood is **placed with four placements** on the corners of the altar, **that if** the priest **placed them with** only **one placement, he has effected atonement.** Therefore, since it is derived that if the priest does not present the blood on the specified corners of the altar, the offering is nevertheless valid, one **might** have thought that blood **that** should have been **placed above** the red line but **that one placed below** the red line **effects atonement as well,** and the offering is valid.


###### Zevachim 52b:4
[Zevachim 52b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:4)

וְדִין הוּא – נֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה, וְנֶאֶמְרוּ דָּמִים לְמַטָּן; מָה דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַטָּן שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָן – לֹא כִּיפֵּר, אַף דָּמִים הָאֲמוּרִים לְמַעְלָן – אִם נָתַן לְמַטָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And** it would seem there **is a logical inference** to counter this logic. **It is stated** that **blood** is to be sprinkled **above** the red line, referring to the blood of an animal sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the corners on the upper half of the altar, **and it is stated** that **blood** is to be sprinkled **below** the red line, referring to the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled on the lower half of the altar. **Just as** with regard to the **blood** about **which** it **is stated** that it is to be **below** the red line, if it is a case **where one placed** it **above** the red line, it does **not effect atonement,** as the Sages derived from the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar, and the remainder of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9), **so too,** with regard to the **blood,** about **which** it **is stated** that it is to be **above** the red line, if it is a case **where one placed** it **below** the red line, it does **not effect atonement.**


###### Zevachim 52b:5
[Zevachim 52b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:5)

לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים שֶׁנִּיתָּנִין בִּנְתִינָה לְמַעְלָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן לְמַעְלָן – לֹא כִּיפֵּר; תֹּאמַר בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב לְמַטָּה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This logical inference is rejected: **No, if you said** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** the blood of a bird sin offering, which is to be sprinkled **below** the red line **that was placed with a placement above** the red line, that may be **because they will not ultimately** be sprinkled **above.** For this reason it does **not effect atonement. Shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** the blood that is to be sprinkled **above** the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, but **which one placed below** the red line, that it will not effect atonement? The blood that is to be sprinkled above the red line is different, **as** some **of it is sacrificed below** the red line, when the remainder of the blood is poured on the base of the altar.


###### Zevachim 52b:6
[Zevachim 52b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:6)

דָּמִים (שִׁירַיִים) הַפְּנִימִיִּים יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁיֵּשׁ מֵהֶן קָרֵב בַּחוּץ, וְאִם נְתָנָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ לֹא כִּיפֵּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* responds: The **blood** that is placed **inside** the Sanctuary **will prove** it, **as** some **of it is sacrificed outside, but if** the priest **initially placed** the blood on the altar **outside** the Sanctuary it does **not effect atonement.**


###### Zevachim 52b:7
[Zevachim 52b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:7)

לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּדָמִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים – שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן; תֹּאמַר בְּעֶלְיוֹנִים – שֶׁהֲרֵי קְרָנוֹת מְמָרְקוֹת אוֹתָן; אִם נְתָנָן לְמַטָּה – כְּשֵׁרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* rejects this proof: **No, if you said** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** the **blood** that is placed **inside** the Sanctuary, concerning **which the inner altar does not complete** the atonement, as they require additional blood placements, **shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** the blood offered **above** the red line, i.e., the blood of an animal sin offering, concerning **which** the **corners** of the altar **complete** the atonement? Accordingly, it is possible to say that **if one placed them below** the red line **they are valid.**


###### Zevachim 52b:8
[Zevachim 52b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:8)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – אוֹתָהּ שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמִים לְמַעְלָה, וְלֹא שֶׁנִּיתָּן דָּמָהּ לְמַטָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: To counter this reasoning, **the verse states** with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: “The priest that sacrifices **it** for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19), to emphasize that **it,** the offering **whose blood was placed** correctly, **above** the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. **But** this is **not** so for an offering **whose blood was placed below** the red line, which is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 52b:9
[Zevachim 52b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:9)

מַאי שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן? לָאו אֵלּוּ שִׁירַיִים?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rami bar Ḥama proves his point: **What** does the *baraita* mean when it says: If you said that this is the *halakha* with regard to the blood that is placed inside the Sanctuary, concerning **which the inner altar does not complete** the atonement? What is required to complete the atonement? Is it **not** referring to **this remainder** of the blood and is teaching that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering?


###### Zevachim 52b:10
[Zevachim 52b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to** Rami bar Ḥama: **If so,** that the *tanna* of the *baraita* holds that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of the offerings whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, you could **derive** the *halakha* that if the priest sprinkled the blood below the red line the offering is disqualified **via an *a fortiori*** inference.


###### Zevachim 52b:11
[Zevachim 52b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:11)

מָה שִׁירַיִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים, שֶׁסּוֹפָן חוֹבָה בַּחוּץ – עֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ לֹא כִּיפֵּר; הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה, שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן חוֹבָה לְמַטָּה, וַעֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה לְמַטָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Just as** it is with regard to **the remainder** of the blood of the offerings **of the inner** altar, concerning **which their ultimate** rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is **obligatory on the external** altar, but if the priest **initially performed** the rite of placing the blood **on the external** altar, it does **not effect atonement,** with regard to those offerings whose blood **is placed above** the red line, concerning **which their ultimate** rite, pouring on the base of the altar, is **not obligatory below** the red line of the altar, **and** the priest **initially performed** the rite of placing the blood **below** the red line, **is it not logical that** it does **not effect atonement?** Since the *baraita* does not advance this claim, but derived the *halakha* from a verse, this indicates that pouring the remainder of the blood is not obligatory.


###### Zevachim 52b:12
[Zevachim 52b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:12)

אֶלָּא אֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **Rather,** when the *baraita* states that the blood of the offerings offered inside the Sanctuary are those concerning which the inner altar does not complete the atonement it means that **the inner altar does not complete** the atonement **alone,** but **rather** requires that blood also be sprinkled inside the Sanctuary on the **Curtain** separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies.


###### Zevachim 52b:13
[Zevachim 52b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִלָּה מִכַּפֵּר״ – אִם כִּיפֵּר כִּלָּה, וְאִם לֹא כִּיפֵּר לָא כִּלָּה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נֹאמַר: אִם כִּלָּה כִּיפֵּר, אִם לֹא כִּלָּה לֹא כִּיפֵּר? שֶׁאִם חִיסַּר אַחַת מִכׇּל הַמַּתָּנוֹת – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states concerning the sacrificial rite performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: **“And when he has finished atoning** for the Sanctuary, and the Tent of Meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat” (Leviticus 16:20). This verse indicates that **if he performed** the **atonement, he has finished** the service, **but if he did not perform** the **atonement, he has not finished.** This is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: For what** reason **do we not say: If he finished, he has performed atonement,** but **if he did not finish, he has not performed atonement?** This derivation would indicate **that if one of any of the** blood **placements is lacking** it is as though **he did nothing.**


###### Zevachim 52b:14
[Zevachim 52b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:14)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי; חַד אָמַר: מַשְׁמָעוּת דּוֹרְשִׁין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְחַד אָמַר: שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions: **What** is the difference **between them? Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** engaged in a dispute concerning this. **One says** that **interpretation of the meaning** of the verse **is** the difference **between them,** i.e., there is no halakhic difference between them but only a dispute as to how to interpret the verses. **And one says** that **there is** a difference **between them** with regard to whether failure to pour the **remainder** of the blood at the base of the altar **disqualifies** the offering. According to Rabbi Akiva, it does not disqualify the offering, whereas Rabbi Yehuda maintains that it does disqualify the offering.


###### Zevachim 52b:15
[Zevachim 52b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:15)

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר: שִׁירַיִים דִּמְעַכְּבִי; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין – מֵבִיא פַּר אֶחָד, וּמַתְחִיל בַּתְּחִלָּה בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is** the one **who says** that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda disagree as to whether or not failure to pour the **remainder** of the blood on the altar **disqualifies** the offering. **As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: According to the statement of the one who says** that failure to pour the **remainder** of the blood on the base of the altar **disqualifies** the offering, if the priest finished placing the blood on the inner altar and the blood was spilled before he poured the remainder on the external altar, he must **bring one bull** and slaughter it, **and begin** the sprinkling of the blood as he did **initially on the inner** altar, so that there will be blood remaining from the sprinkling, and then he pours the remainder of the blood on the external altar. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi discusses the opinion that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the *baraita* cited here.


###### Zevachim 52b:16
[Zevachim 52b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:16)

אַטּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֵית לֵיהּ הָא סְבָרָא?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תַּנָּא רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִם מְעַכְּבִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that to say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan does not** agree with **this reasoning? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan** himself **say** (111a): **Rabbi Neḥemya taught** a *halakha* **in accordance with the statement of the one who says** that failure to pour the **remainder** of blood **disqualifies** the offering? Rabbi Yoḥanan also discusses the opinion of a *tanna* who holds that failure to pour the remainder of blood disqualifies the offering, apparently in reference to the *baraita* cited here.


###### Zevachim 52b:17
[Zevachim 52b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:17)

אֶלָּא כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר – וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי; הָכָא נָמֵי, כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר – וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** there is no proof that Rabbi Yoḥanan is referring to the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda. He is stating a *halakha* **in accordance with the statement of the one who says** that it disqualifies the offering, whichever *tanna* that may be, **but** he is **not** referring **to** the dispute between **these *tanna’im*. Here too,** Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is stating a *halakha* **in accordance with the statement of the one who says** that it disqualifies the offering, whichever *tanna* that may be, **but** he is **not** referring **to** the dispute between **these *tanna’im*.**


###### Zevachim 52b:18
[Zevachim 52b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/52b:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** חַטּאוֹת הַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד – אֵלּוּ הֵן חַטְּאוֹת הַצִּבּוּר? שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים וְשֶׁל מוֹעֲדוֹת. שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן, וְדָמָן טָעוּן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת. כֵּיצַד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** These are the *halakhot* of **the communal and the individual sin offerings. These are the communal sin offerings: Goats of the New Moon and of the Festivals. Their slaughter** is **in the north** of the Temple courtyard, **and** the **collection of their blood in a service vessel** is **in the north, and their blood requires four placements on the four corners of the altar. How** did the priest do so?