איזהו מקומן, פרק חמישי, זבחים דף נא ע"א

…purifies its treifah from its tumah; so too melikah, which makes it fit to be eaten, should purify its treifah from its tumah.^[1]

Rabbi Yosi says: It is enough for it to be like the neveilah of a kosher animal, which its shechitah purifies, but not its melikah.^[2]

But that is not so: there, even granted [that it is learned by binyan av], it comes from the shechitah of chullin.^[3]

הכי גרסי' ולא היא התם תיהוי משחיטה דחולין קאתיא - this is its meaning: there, Rabbi Meir’s main reason is not learned by binyan av at all, but from the hekesh of “This is the law of the animal and of the bird,” as we say below in perek Chatas Ha’of (69b): Rabbi Meir found a verse and expounded it. And even granted that he learns it by binyan av, as the Mishnah teaches, our question is not resolved, for Rabbi Meir learns melikah of kodashim from the shechitah of chullin, so the teaching source is chullin; and for whoever does not hold like Rav Pappa, even though what is learned is kodashim, it is no proof.

A law learned through a binyan av — may it in turn teach through a hekesh, a gezeirah shavah, a kal vachomer, or a binyan av?^[4]

Resolve one of them from this:

פשוט מהא - the Mishnah resolves one of these questions.

“Why did they say:^[5]

מפני מה אמרו - this is below, in perek Hamizbe’ach Mekadesh (84b), according to Rabbi Yehudah, who expounds “This is the olah”: these are exclusions — except for one slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood went outside the curtains. And he asks: what reason did he see to exclude these and to validate the rest?

If the blood was left overnight, it is valid — because if the eimurin were left overnight, it is valid.^[6]

מפני מה אמרו לן בדם כשר - that if it went up [on the altar] it does not come down, because it is valid with the eimurin: if the eimurin were left overnight and went up on the altar, they do not come down.

If the eimurin were left overnight, it is valid — because if the meat was left overnight, it is valid.^[7]

ולן באימורין למה כשר שהרי לן בבשר כשר - fully valid by Torah law, since the time for eating shelamim is two days. So we see that the eimurin, which are learned by binyan av, teach in turn about the blood.

If it went out [of the courtyard] — because what goes out is valid on a bamah.^[8]

If it became tamei — because [tumah] was permitted in the communal service.^[9]

טמא - limbs of an olah that became tamei: why, if they went up, do they not come down?

[If it was offered with intent to eat it] beyond its time — because it is accepted so as to make it piggul.^[10]

הואיל ומרצה לפיגולו - since the presenting of its blood counts to make one liable for piggul, as though its permitters had been offered validly; therefore eimurin of piggul that went up do not come down.

[With intent to eat it] outside its place — because it is compared to beyond its time.^[11]

Where unfit persons received [the blood] and sprinkled its blood

שקבלו פסולין - if they sprinkled its blood: why, if the blood or the eimurin went up, do they not come down?

— with those unfit persons who are fit for the communal service.^[12]

בהנך פסולין - those fit for the communal service, such as a tamei kohen.

But may one derive a thing that is not in its proper form from a thing that is in its proper form?

וכי דנין דבר כו' - for you derive [linah] for the eimurin, where it is not their proper form, from the meat, for which this is its proper form and its mitzvah. And further, how can one derive “went out” in the Mikdash from “went out” on a bamah, where everything is “out”, since there are no curtains there, only the open field?

It was taught: from This is the law of the olah he included them — that is what he relies on.^[13]

זאת תורת העולה - one law for all olos: if they went up they do not come down, as it is written, on its pyre all night. And all these proofs are brought because he excludes three disqualifications from “this is the olah”, [and is asked] why these differ from those; but the main source is the verse, and these are mere support.

The remainder of the blood, etc.:^[14]

What is the reason?

מאי טעמא - “the western base” — for it is written of the bull of the anointed kohen (Vayikra 4): to the base of the altar of the olah, which is at the entrance of the Ohel Moed — the base that faces the entrance, which is the western side of the altar, facing the entrance of the Heichal. And below, in a beraisa (52a), we derive for the Yom Kippur bull, from the extra word “the bull”, that its blood requires the base like the bull of the anointed kohen; and of the goat it is written (Vayikra 16): and he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull.

The verse says (Vayikra 4:7): “to the base of the altar of the olah, which is at the entrance of the Ohel Moed” — the one he meets first.^[15]

אל יסוד מזבח העולה - there are five passages on the chatas: the bull of the anointed kohen and the [communal] bull for an unwitting error, which are inner offerings; and the goat of the nasi, the individual’s ewe and the individual’s she-goat, which are outer offerings. In the two inner ones and in the goat of the nasi it is written, of pouring their remainder, “to the base of the altar of the olah”; in the two outer ones it says only “to the base of the altar”. So the Tanna expounds three times: why did Scripture specify “the altar of the olah”? We read it so in Toras Kohanim: “To the base of the altar of the olah” of the bull of the anointed kohen — and not the base of the inner altar. “To the base of the altar of the olah” of the communal bull, which need not have been said — the inner altar has no base at all. When it says “to the base of the altar of the olah” of the goat of the nasi, which need not have been said: if the inner altar did not receive its own remainder, will it receive the remainder of the outer altar? Another explanation: does the inner altar have a base at all? If so, why does it say “to the base of the altar of the olah”? Give a base to the altar of the olah. Here too we must read three expositions, and so we read it. Its meaning: “to the base of the altar of the olah”, said of the bull of the anointed kohen — and not the base of the inner altar, so that you should not say the pouring of its remainder is at the place where the blood is put on the corners.

The Rabbis taught: “To the base of the altar of the olah” — and not the base of the inner altar.^[16]

אל יסוד מזבח העולה - said of the communal bull, which is not needed again, since the two are compared to each other; rather it comes to teach that the inner altar has no base at all. It is expounded thus: since it is superfluous, it is free for exposition — there is a base for the altar of the olah, and not for the inner one.

“To the base of the altar of the olah” — the inner altar itself has no base.

אל יסוד מזבח העולה - said of the goat of the nasi, which need not have been said, as Toras Kohanim explains explicitly, for two reasons: [first,] the inner altar did not receive the remainder of the blood of its own inner offerings, such as the bull of the anointed kohen and of the community, as we said — will it receive the remainder of the outer altar? (a rhetorical question); and further, we have learned that it has no base. Below (52a) we explain it the same way in our sugya. If so, why does it say “to the base of the altar of the olah”? Give a base to the altar of the olah: give the law of pouring the remainder at the base to the laws of the altar of the olah — that the altar requires, with the olah and with all blood put on it, that the remainder be poured at the base: if anything is left in the vessel after he sprinkles two sprinklings from it onto two corners, he pours it at the base. And because pouring the remainder is not written of the olah, it had to be derived from here.

“To the base of the altar of the olah” — give a base to the altar of the olah.^[17]

Or perhaps it means only that the altar of the olah [service] should be at the base?^[18]

או אינו אלא למזבחה של עולה יהא יסוד - or perhaps it teaches nothing about pouring the remainder of the olah and of other blood, but teaches a law of the altar in putting the blood of the olah: that he must put its two applications opposite the base, to exclude the south-eastern corner, which has no base, as we say in this perek (53b).

Rabbi Yishmael said: [It follows by] kal vachomer.^[19]

אמר רבי ישמעאל מקל וחומר - we derive this, and need no verse.

If the remainder, which does not atone, requires the base, then the first blood of the olah, which atones — surely it requires the base!

מה שירים של חטאת שאין מכפרין טעונין יסוד כו' - and Rabbi Akiva derives this kal vachomer thus: “If the remainder…” etc.; and further on the Gemara explains what difference there is between them.

Rabbi Akiva said: If the remainder, which does not atone and does not come to atone, requires the base, then the first blood of the olah, which atones and comes to atone — surely it requires the base.^[20]

If so, why does the verse say, “To the base of the altar of the olah”? Give a base to the altar of the olah.

The master said: “To the base of the altar — and not the base of the inner altar”:^[21]

But it is needed for itself!

האי מיבעיא ליה לגופיה - that he pour them at the base of the outer altar; but [one could still say that] all the more, if he wished, he may put them on the inner altar — for from where would he learn an exclusion? And if you object that we learn from the beraisa that the inner altar has no base at all — that comes from the verse being superfluous. And if you expound the first verse for itself and the second for the exclusion, the second is no longer superfluous for this, only the third verse; and then you have no exposition left for the third.

(Vayikra 4:7) “From ‘which is at the entrance of the Ohel Moed’ that is already derived!^[22]

מאשר פתח אהל מועד נפקא - that is, the outer altar. The verse could have written “to the base of the altar which is at the entrance of the Ohel Moed” — why do I need “the altar of the olah”? For the exclusion.

“To the base of the altar of the olah”…^[23]

Tosfos

פשוט מהא חדא - It is puzzling: let him resolve two! For since it teaches through its fellow binyan av, then it teaches through a kal vachomer: if a hekesh, which does not teach through a hekesh, still teaches through a kal vachomer (according to Ravina, from what the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught), then a binyan av, which teaches through its fellow binyan av, surely teaches through a kal vachomer. And a kal vachomer of this kind is made above.

מפני מה אמרו לן בדם כשר - It is puzzling: how does he infer from here that a binyan av teaches in turn through a binyan av? Perhaps blood that remained after sunset is derived from eimurin that remained, which are not disqualified at sunset but only at dawn; and then eimurin that remained until dawn, when they are disqualified, are derived — that if they went up they do not come down — from meat that remained. One may answer: it is obvious to him that, even though he derives for the eimurin, not in their proper form, from the meat, in its proper form, the blood, which permits the offering, is weightier, and we do not derive for blood not in its proper form from something in its proper form. Proof: we do not derive at the outset blood left overnight from meat left overnight.

אשר פתח אהל מועד - the base facing the entrance, which is the west of the altar, facing the entrance of the Heichal — so Rashi explained. He does not read what is written in the books, the one he meets first, because that implies the reason is that one does not pass over mitzvos,^[24] and not the verse “the entrance of the Ohel Moed”. Moreover, regarding the chatas, some say the remainder of the blood goes on the western base (below, 53a), and the reason given is: let the unspecified be learned from the specified, from the inner chatas — implying that it is stated explicitly. Further, some say on the southern base, and the reason given is: [the remainder] goes, as he comes down from the ramp, to the side nearest it, [just as the inner blood goes,] as he comes out of the Heichal, to the side nearest it. Why is one more obvious to him than the other, when the reason of not passing over mitzvos applies to both? Further, we say below (58b) of the remainder of kodshei kodashim that it is explicitly written of them which is at the entrance of the Ohel Moed. Yet this itself is difficult: why do I need the verse “the entrance of the Ohel Moed”? Let it follow from “one does not pass over mitzvos”, as we find this reason in the first perek of Yoma (15b), where the Gemara asks why he first puts the blood on the north-eastern corner; and regarding clearing the inner altar and the menorah it says the altar is cleared first because one does not pass over mitzvos; and likewise passing over the arm tefillin to reach the head tefillin is forbidden. One may answer: “one does not pass over mitzvos” applies only when two mitzvos are before him, such as clearing the inner altar and the menorah, or as with the mitzvah of the corners, where he does not know where to begin; but we would not fix the place for pouring the remainder by this reason, had the verse not revealed it explicitly.

הכי גרסינן מאשר פתח אהל מועד נפקא - and even though we expound it for the western base, learn two things from it.

Notes

1. 1. Melikah is the slaughter of a bird-offering: the kohen pinches through the back of its neck with his thumbnail. Rabbi Meir argues: shechitah, which makes an animal fit to eat, also saves a treifah animal from the tumah of neveilah; so melikah, which makes the bird fit to eat, should save a treifah bird from the tumah of a bird’s neveilah.
2. 2. Rabbi Yosi applies dayo: what is derived by kal vachomer can be no stricter than its source. The source is a kosher animal, which only shechitah, not melikah, saves from neveilah tumah.
3. 3. The Gemara had tried to prove from Rabbi Meir’s argument how far a law derived in kodashim may teach further. It rejects the proof: there the source is the shechitah of chullin, and the restrictions on a derived law teaching again apply when the source is kodashim.
4. 4. Binyan av, hekesh, gezeirah shavah and kal vachomer are among the methods by which the Torah is expounded. In kodashim a law learned by one method does not always teach again by every method, and the Gemara is working through each pair; here it asks about a law learned by binyan av.
5. 5. The Gemara brings a teaching found below (84b): according to Rabbi Yehudah, disqualified offerings that went up on the altar are not taken down, except one slaughtered at night, one whose blood spilled, and one whose blood went outside the curtains. It then explains why each other disqualification is treated as valid.
6. 6. Linah: blood or eimurin (the parts burned on the altar) that were not offered before dawn become disqualified by being left overnight. Even so, if they went up on the altar, they are not taken down.
7. 7. Shelamim meat may be eaten for two days, so a night does not disqualify it. The eimurin are learned from the meat, and the blood from the eimurin — a law learned by binyan av teaching again by binyan av. That is the “one” question resolved.
8. 8. An offering taken out of the courtyard is disqualified. When private altars (bamos) were permitted, there was no such disqualification, since a bamah has no enclosure.
9. 9. Tumah is permitted in communal service: when most of the community or of the kohanim are tamei, communal offerings are brought in tumah.
10. 10. Piggul is an offering whose service was done with the intent to eat it after its time. The sprinkling of its blood counts as if valid, to make the offering piggul and bring the penalty of kareis; therefore its eimurin that went up are not taken down.
11. 11. Intent to eat it outside its permitted place disqualifies the offering, and this disqualification is compared by the Torah to intent beyond its time.
12. 12. For example, a tamei kohen, who may serve in communal offerings at a time when tumah is permitted for the community.
13. 13. The real source is the verse “This is the law of the olah” (Vayikra 6:2): one law for all olos, that once they went up they are not taken down. Rashi explains that the reasons given above are only a support.
14. 14. The Gemara takes up the Mishnah’s clause: the remainder of the blood (shirayim), left in the vessel after the applications, is poured on the western base of the outer altar. The base (yesod) was a ledge at the foot of the altar, running all along its north and west sides and one cubit along its south and east. The question assumes this fixed place and asks why the western side.
15. 15. The western base faces the entrance of the Heichal, so it is the first part of the altar the kohen reaches as he comes out. Tosfos (ד"ה אשר פתח אהל מועד) deletes “the one he meets first”, so that the reason comes from the verse and not from the rule that one does not pass over mitzvos.
16. 16. “To the base of the altar of the olah” appears three times: with the bull of the anointed kohen, with the communal bull, and with the goat of the nasi. The beraisa expounds each one. The inner altar is the golden incense altar inside the Heichal.
17. 17. That is, the remainder of all blood put on the outer altar, including the blood of the olah, must be poured at the base (Rashi).
18. 18. That is, perhaps the verse teaches only that the olah’s blood must be put on corners that have a base, excluding the south-eastern corner, which has none (Rashi).
19. 19. A kal vachomer is an argument from a lighter case to a weightier one. Rabbi Yishmael derives from this reasoning that the olah’s blood requires the base, so no verse is needed.
20. 20. Rabbi Akiva adds “and does not come to atone”. The Gemara explains later what difference there is between the two versions.
21. 21. The Gemara goes back to the beraisa’s first exposition: the verse about the bull of the anointed kohen comes to exclude the inner altar. Its question assumes that this verse is needed for its plain meaning, to tell the kohen where to pour the remainder.
22. 22. That is, the words “which is at the entrance of the Ohel Moed” already show that the outer altar is meant. So “the altar of the olah” is extra, and free to exclude the inner altar.
23. 23. The Gemara’s argument continues at the top of the next amud (51b).
24. 24. The rule that one does not pass over mitzvos: when a mitzvah comes to hand first, one should not pass it by to do another. The Gemara uses it in Yoma 15b for the order of clearing the altar and the menorah.