וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִשְׁאָר – לֹא יִמָּצֶה! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

מַאי ״שֶׁאֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן״? לָאו אֵלּוּ שִׁירַיִים?

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?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי הָכִי, תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר.

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.

מַה שִּׁירַיִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים שֶׁסּוֹפָן חוֹבָה בַּחוּץ, עֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה בַּחוּץ – לֹא כִּיפֵּר, הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁאֵין סוֹפָן חוֹבָה לְמַטָּה, וַעֲשָׂאָן בַּתְּחִלָּה לְמַטָּה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?

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.

אֶלָּא, אֵין מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי מְמָרְקָן בִּלְבָד, אֶלָּא פָּרוֹכֶת.

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.

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

§ 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.

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

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.

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי הוּא דְּאָמַר שִׁירַיִים דִּמְעַכְּבִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לְדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין, מֵבִיא פָּר אֶחָד וּמַתְחִיל בִּתְחִלָּה בִּפְנִים.

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.

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

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.

אֶלָּא כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי, הָכָא נַמִי כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר וְלָאו לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי.

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 .

מתני׳ חַטֹּאות הַצִּבּוּר וְהַיָּחִיד; אֵלּוּ הֵן חַטֹּאות הַצִּבּוּר: שְׂעִירֵי רָאשֵׁי חֳדָשִׁים וְשֶׁל מוֹעֲדוֹת; שְׁחִיטָתָן בַּצָּפוֹן, וְקִיבּוּל דָּמָן בִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת בַּצָּפוֹן, וְדָמָן טָעוּן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת עַל אַרְבַּע קְרָנוֹת. כֵּיצַד?

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?