מַאי לָאו אַפַּלְגֵּיהּ דְּמִזְבֵּחַ, כִּדְאָמְרִי אֱינָשֵׁי ״טְהַר טִיהֲרָא דְּיוֹמָא״? אֲמַר רָבָא בַּר שֵׁילָא: לָא, אַגִּילּוּיֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר״.

What, is it not referring to the middle of the side of the altar, as people say: Clear noon [ tihara ], that is the middle of the day? Accordingly, the root tet , heh , reish denotes the middle; in the one case, the middle of the day, and in the other case, halfway up the altar. Now, since the blood was sprinkled on the altar seven times, inevitably some of the blood landed above the midpoint and some of it landed below the midpoint. Rava bar Sheila said: No, that is not the meaning of tohoro . Rather, tohoro means on the revealed part, i.e., the top, of the altar, as it is written: “Like the very clear [ latohar ] sky” (Exodus 24:10). Tohoro is referring to the top of the altar when it has been revealed, after the ashes of the incense are cleared and the pure gold is visible.

וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם! שִׁירַיִם לָא מְעַכְּבִי.

The Gemara asks again: Is there not a case where some of the blood is presented above the red line and some of it is presented below? But there is the remainder of the blood, which is poured on the base of the altar even in the case of a sin offering, the main blood of which is placed on the upper portion of the altar. The Gemara answers: The pouring of the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is not indispensable for atonement. Blood that is indispensable for atonement is in no instance presented half above the red line and half below it.

וְהָאִיכָּא שִׁירַיִם הַפְּנִימִים, דְּאִיכָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מְעַכְּבִי! בְּחַד מָקוֹם קָאָמְרִינַן.

The Gemara continues this line of questioning: But there is the remainder of the blood of the inner sin offerings, the main blood of which is sprinkled on the inner altar. The remainder of the blood of these offerings is poured on the base of the external altar, and there is one who says that this pouring of the blood is indispensable for atonement. The Gemara explains: When we said that there is no blood, half of which is presented above and half below, we said this with regard to one place, i.e., the same altar. The blood of inner sin offerings is sprinkled on the inner altar, while the remainder of that blood is poured on the base of the external altar. There is no case of blood, half of which is presented above and half of which is presented below on the same altar.

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת, וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכָל הַזְּבָחִים – מַתִּירוֹת.

§ The mishna teaches that according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, in the case of a sin offering two placements facilitate atonement, while with regard to other offerings a single placement is sufficient. Beit Hillel disagree and say that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices after the fact. With regard to this issue, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Beit Shammai say that two placements in the case of a sin offering, and one placement in the case of other offerings, they render the offering permitted for eating since these actions facilitate atonement after the fact, despite the fact that blood was not placed on all four corners of the altar.

וּמְפַגְּלוֹת. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַחַת שֶׁבְּחַטָּאת, וְאַחַת שֶׁבְּכָל הַזְּבָחִים מַתֶּרֶת וּמְפַגֶּלֶת.

And similarly they render the offering piggul . That is to say, if the priest placed two placements of the blood of a sin offering or one placement of the blood of any another offering, intending to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul . Beit Hillel say: One placement in the case a sin offering, and likewise one placement in the case of all the other offerings, if done with proper intent, renders the offering permitted for eating and, if done with improper intent, renders the offering piggul .

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעֲיָא: אִם כֵּן, לִיתְנְיֵיהּ גַּבֵּי קוּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וְחוּמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל!

Rav Oshaya objects to this: If so, let this halakha be taught in the fourth chapter of tractate Eduyyot alongside the other rare cases of Beit Shammai’s leniencies and Beit Hillel’s stringencies. According to Beit Hillel, a sin offering is piggul even if the priest intended to partake of it beyond its designated time even while performing a single placement, whereas Beit Shammai maintain that the offering is piggul only if he had this improper intent during two placements.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: כִּי אִיתְשִׁיל – לְהֶתֵּירָא אִיתְשִׁיל, דְּהָווּ לְהוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְחוּמְרָא.

Rava said to Rav Oshaya: When this question was initially asked, and the Sages stated their opinions concerning the matter, it was asked with regard to the permission to partake of the sin offering. In other words, the dispute arose as a result of an inquiry into the other relevant halakha , i.e., whether the priests may partake of a sin offering, the blood of which was placed only one time. In this case it is Beit Shammai who are more stringent, as they permit the meat of a sin offering only after two placements have been placed. For this reason, this case was not listed among the other leniencies of Beit Shammai and stringencies of Beit Hillel.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּחַטָּאוֹת אֵינָן בָּאוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Despite the fact that, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, the last three placements in the case of a sin offering are not indispensable to the atonement, they may not be performed at night, because the blood is invalidated at sunset. And these three placements may be performed after the death of the owner. If the owner of the offering died before any of the blood was placed on the altar, the blood may not be placed, and the offering is burned as a disqualified offering. But if he died after one placement, the priest may perform the other three placements, as he has already facilitated atonement by means of the first placement. And as it is a mitzva to perform these three placements on the altar, one who offers this blood up on an altar outside the Temple is liable to receive karet , the punishment received by one who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple.

אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא: יֵשׁ מֵהֶן כִּתְחִלָּתוֹ, וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּסוֹפוֹ;

Rav Pappa says: There are some respects in which the blood of the last three placements of a sin offering is treated like the blood presented at the outset, i.e., like the blood of the first placement, and there are some respects in which 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.

חוּץ, וְלַיְלָה, זָרוּת, וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת, קֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, כִּיבּוּס, וְשִׁירַיִם – כִּתְחִלָּתָן.

Rav Pappa elaborates: With regard to liability for presenting blood outside the Temple, and concerning the prohibition against presenting blood at night, and with regard to the disqualification of a non-priest from presenting blood and his liability for death at the hand of Heaven if he presents blood in the Temple, and with regard to the requirement that the blood that is to be presented must first be placed in a service vessel, and that the blood must be placed on the corner of the altar, and that the placement must be performed with the priest’s finger, and concerning the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, and finally with regard to the requirement of pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar, the last three placements are treated like blood presented at the outset, i.e., like the first placement.

וּבָאוֹת לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לָא שָׁרְיָא, וְלָא מְפַגְּלָא, וְלָא עַיְילָא לְגַוַּאי – כְּסוֹפָן.

But these last three placements may be performed after the death of the owner; and they do not render the offering permitted for eating, as that was already achieved by means of the first placement; nor do they render the offering piggul if during these placements the priest intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time; and similarly, they are 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.

אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: מְנָא אָמִינָא לָהּ? דִּתְנַן: נִיתַּז מִן הַצַּוָּאר עַל הַבֶּגֶד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, מִן הַקֶּרֶן וּמִן הַיְּסוֹד – אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס; הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לַקֶּרֶן – טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס!

With regard to the obligation to launder a garment onto which the blood of a sin offering sprayed, Rav Pappa said: From where do I say that this halakha applies even to the blood of the last three placements? It is as we learned in a mishna (93a): If the blood of a sin offering sprayed directly from the neck of the animal onto a garment, that garment does not require laundering, as the blood had never been received in a vessel. Likewise, if the blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar after having been placed there, or from the base of the altar after the remainder was poured there, the garment does not require laundering. It may be inferred from here that blood that sprayed from the corner of the altar does not require laundering. But blood that is fit to be placed on the corner, as it has not yet been placed, requires laundering, and the blood of the last three placements is indeed fit to be placed on the corner of the altar.

וְלִיטַעֲמֵיךְ, מִן הַיְּסוֹד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, הָא מִן הָרָאוּי לַיְּסוֹד טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ כְּתִיב, פְּרָט לָזֶה שֶׁכְּבָר הוּזָּה!

The Gemara rejects this proof: But according to your reasoning, one can claim in the same manner that it is only blood that sprayed from the base of the altar that does not require laundering; but blood that is fit for the base of the altar, i.e., what remains of the blood after it has been placed on the corners, requires laundering. This is difficult, as it is written: “And when there will be sprinkled [ yizze ] of its blood upon any garment” (Leviticus 6:20). The future form of the word yizze serves to exclude this blood sprayed onto the garment from the corner of the altar, as it has already been sprinkled.

הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה; דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabbi Neḥemya says: With regard to the remainder of the blood of an offering, which was to be poured at the base of the altar, if one presented it outside the Temple, he is liable. Since Rabbi Neḥemya treats the remainder of the blood as blood with regard to liability for a service performed outside the Temple, he also treats the remainder of the blood of a sin offering as blood with regard to laundering. Accordingly, Rav Pappa’s inference from the previously cited mishna is valid only according to Rabbi Neḥemya, but not according to the majority opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him.

אֵימַר דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה לְעִנְיַן הַעֲלָאָה, מִידֵי דְּהָוֵי אַאֵיבָרִים וּפְדָרִים, לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס מִי שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ? אִין,

The Gemara challenges the proof even according to the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya: Say that you heard that Rabbi Neḥemya ruled in this manner with regard to the offering up of the remainder of the blood outside the Temple, just as is the case with regard to limbs and fats. Even though the offering of the limbs and fats is not indispensable for atonement, one who offers them outside the Temple is liable. But did you also hear him say this with regard to laundering, that one must launder a garment sprayed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering? The Gemara answers: Yes, we also heard Rabbi Neḥemya rule in this manner with regard to laundering.