Talmud - Zevahim 39a זבחים ל״ט א׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

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).

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.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Zevachim 39a examines laundering requirements for blood poured at the altar's base and how improper intent affects piggul status in sacrificial offerings.