## Zevachim Daf 92b

###### Zevachim 92b:1
[Zevachim 92b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:1)

וְקֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, וְחוּדָּהּ, וְאִישִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** their blood is placed on the **corner** of the altar; **and** the blood is placed with a priest’s **finger; and** the blood is placed on **the edge of** the corner of the altar; **and** parts of each are consumed in **flames** upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.


###### Zevachim 92b:2
[Zevachim 92b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:2)

אַדְּרַבָּה, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן חוּץ כְּמוֹתָהּ, וַאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹתָהּ! הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included** and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, **as** the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the **outer** altar **like** an animal sin offering that is eaten, **and** the bird sin offering has portions set aside for **eating, like it.** The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: **Those** features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings **are more numerous** than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.


###### Zevachim 92b:3
[Zevachim 92b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:3)

רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – לָזוֹ וְלֹא לְאַחֶרֶת; בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, **the verse states:** “The priest that offers it for sin **shall eat it”** (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies **to it,** i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, **and not to another** similar sin offering. Consequently, **the verse is excluding** a case **within** the broad category of **eaten** sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.


###### Zevachim 92b:4
[Zevachim 92b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:4)

וְאֶלָּא ״זֹאת״ לְמָה לִי? אִי לָאו ״זֹאת״, הָוֵי אָמֵינָא: ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then **why do I** need the derivation from the verse: **“This** is the law of the sin offering”? The Gemara answers: **If not** for the derivation from **“this,” I would say** that the term **“shall eat it”** is simply **the manner** of speech **of the verse,** so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” **teaches us** that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “shall eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.


###### Zevachim 92b:5
[Zevachim 92b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:5)

רַבָּה אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – בְּהַזָּאוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said** that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as **the verse states: “It shall be sprinkled”** (Leviticus 6:20). **The verse is speaking of** sin offerings that require **sprinklings,** and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).


###### Zevachim 92b:6
[Zevachim 92b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:6)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת! לְעִנְיַן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס – ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? **But isn’t it taught** in the mishna: **Although the verse is speaking only of** sin offerings **that are eaten,** indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s statement pertains **to the matter of scouring and rinsing** copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. **But in the matter of laundering:** “You shall launder that on which **it shall be sprinkled”** (Leviticus 6:20) **is written,** and the term “it shall be sprinkled” indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: “The law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18).


###### Zevachim 92b:7
[Zevachim 92b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:7)

אִי הָכִי, ״אֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת וְאֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת״?! ״אֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: ״אֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: **Both** the sin offerings **that are eaten and the internal** sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the *tanna* **should have** stated: **Both the internal** sin offerings **and** the sin offerings **that are eaten,** first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: **Teach** it as: **Both the internal** sin offerings **and the** sin offerings **that are eaten.**


###### Zevachim 92b:8
[Zevachim 92b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:8)

אִי הָכִי, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי! מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת״. אִי הָכִי, חִיצוֹנָה נָמֵי לָא! רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹרַת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If so,** that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of **a bird sin offering** should require laundering **as well,** as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: **The Merciful One excludes** bird offerings by stating: **“This** is the law of the sin offering.” The Gemara challenges: **If so,** that the function of this verse is to be understood as a restriction, **an external** sin offering **also** should **not** require laundering. The Gemara responds: **The Merciful One amplified** the *halakha* to include external sin offerings by stating: **“The law of.”**


###### Zevachim 92b:9
[Zevachim 92b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:9)

וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן בְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן, וְקַבָּלַת כְּלִי, וְקֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, וְחוּדָּהּ, וְאִישִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what did you see** that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: **It stands to reason** that the eaten **animal sin offering should have been included, as** the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large **animal;** each is subject to **slaughter on the north** side of the courtyard; **and** the blood of each requires **collection in a vessel; and** their blood is placed on the **corner** of the altar; **and** the blood is placed with a priest’s **finger; and** the blood is placed on **the edge of** the corner of the altar; **and** parts of each are consumed in **flames** upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.


###### Zevachim 92b:10
[Zevachim 92b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:10)

אַדְּרַבָּה, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן הַזָּאָה כְּמוֹתָהּ! הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **On the contrary,** the **bird sin offering should have been included** in the requirement for laundering, **as** the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed **sprinkling,** just **like it** is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: **Those** features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings **are more numerous** than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.


###### Zevachim 92b:11
[Zevachim 92b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:11)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁהִכְנִיס דָּמָהּ בְּצַוָּארָהּ בִּפְנִים, מַהוּ? צַוָּארָהּ כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דָּמֵי, וּמִיפְּסִיל;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this *halakha*, **Rabbi Avin asks:** When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of **a bird sin offering,** which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, **whose blood** a priest **brought inside** the Sanctuary **in its neck, what is** the *halakha*? Is **its neck comparable to a service vessel,** since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, **and** therefore it is **disqualified** if brought into the Sanctuary this way?


###### Zevachim 92b:12
[Zevachim 92b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:12)

אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה – ״מִדָּמָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָא בְּשָׂרָהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: פִּירְכְּסָה וְנִכְנְסָה לִפְנִים וְחָזְרָה – כְּשֵׁירָה. הָא הִכְנִיסָהּ – פְּסוּלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** is its neck **comparable to the neck of** a large **animal** offering, about which **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“Of whose blood** is brought into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, **but** the blood is **not** disqualified when the animal’s **flesh** is brought inside. What is the status of the bird’s neck? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering **convulsed and** consequently **entered inside** the Sanctuary **and** then it **returned** to the courtyard, it remains **valid;** its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, **but** if a priest has **brought it in,** it is **disqualified** because of the blood in its neck.


###### Zevachim 92b:13
[Zevachim 92b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:13)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, גַּבֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים דְּקָתָנֵי: פִּירְכְּסָה וְיָצְאָה לַדָּרוֹם וְחָזְרָה – כְּשֵׁרָה; הָא הוֹצִיאָהּ – פְּסוּלָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **But according to your reasoning,** one might draw a faulty inference from the *halakha* of a convulsing offering, as follows. **With regard to** an animal **offering of the most sacred order,** about **which it is taught** in a *baraita*: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal **convulsed, and** consequently it **went out to the south** side of the courtyard **and** then **returned** to the north side, it remains **valid;** should it be inferred: **But** if a priest **took it out** to the south side it becomes **disqualified?** The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.


###### Zevachim 92b:14
[Zevachim 92b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:14)

אֶלָּא הַאי יָצְתָה לַחוּץ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי יָצְתָה לַחוּץ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be assumed that **this** *halakha*, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It **was necessary for** the *baraita* to teach this *halakha* in order to establish a contrast with an animal that **went out to the outside** beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. **Here, too,** with regard to the bird sin offering, the *halakha* of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This *halakha* **was necessary for** establishing a contrast with a bird offering that **went out to the outside** beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.


###### Zevachim 92b:15
[Zevachim 92b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:15)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפָהּ, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Avin asks** another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering **spilled onto the floor and** the priest **collected it** from the floor in order to sprinkle it, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Zevachim 92b:16
[Zevachim 92b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:16)

אַצְרוֹכֵיה הוּא דְּלָא אַצְרְכֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וְהִלְכָּךְ אוֹסְפוֹ וְכָשֵׁר; אוֹ דִלְמָא מִיפְסָל פְּסַל בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְהִלְכָּךְ אוֹסְפוֹ וּפָסוּל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Is it simply that **the Merciful One did not require a service vessel** for the collection of the bird’s blood, **and therefore** a priest **may collect it** from the floor **and** it remains **fit** for sprinkling on the altar? **Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for** sprinkling **it** in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird’s body, **and therefore,** if it spills on the floor and the priest **collects it,** it is **unfit** for sprinkling.


###### Zevachim 92b:17
[Zevachim 92b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:17)

אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: יָכוֹל יְהֵא דַּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִיפְסָל פָּסֵיל בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּהָא אִפְּסִיל לֵהּ בַּאֲוִיר כְּלִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Come** and **hear** a proof, deduced from a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering** if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, **the verse states: “This** is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. **But if it enters your mind** that **the Merciful One rendered** a vessel **unfit for** sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. **I will deduce** the *halakha* that a bird’s blood does not require laundering **because** the blood **becomes disqualified** even by merely passing **into the airspace of a vessel.** Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.


###### Zevachim 92b:18
[Zevachim 92b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:18)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בְּמַדְבִּיק כְּלִי בְּצַוָּארָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** The *baraita* provides no decisive proof, as even if a bird’s blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word “this” must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as **in** a case when the priest **affixes a vessel to** the bird’s **neck.** Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avin’s question.


###### Zevachim 92b:19
[Zevachim 92b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:19)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי: נִיתַּז מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, מַהוּ? מִבֶּגֶד קַמָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ לְכִיבּוּס, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. **Levi asked** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering **sprayed from** one **garment to** another **garment, what is** the *halakha*? **By** contact with the **first garment,** is the blood thereby **dismissed** with regard to the requirement **of laundering,** such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? **Or perhaps not.**


###### Zevachim 92b:20
[Zevachim 92b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/92b:20)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה! טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ; אִי אוֹסְפוֹ וְכָשֵׁר – הָא כָּשֵׁר. וְאִי אוֹסְפוֹ וּפָסוּל – אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְבִירָא לִי, דְּאָמַר: הָיְתָה (לוֹ) [לָהּ] שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה – דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **said to him: This** is an excellent **question;** and the answer is: The garment **requires laundering whichever** way **you** look at it. **If** the *halakha* is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest **may collect it and** it is still **fit** for presentation on the altar, then **this** blood is also **fit.** Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. **And if** you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if **he collects it, it is unfit** for presentation, **I hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says:** If the offering **had a period of fitness and** then **was disqualified, its blood requires laundering.** Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness.