Whence do we know that all blood must be poured out at the base [of the altar]? (1) From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar! — He (2) deduces that from Rabbi's [inference]. For it was taught: Rabbi said: [Scripture writes,] And the rest of the blood shall be drained out [at the base of the altar]. (3) Now, ‘of the blood’ need not be stated; (4) why then is it stated? Because we have learnt only that that blood which requires four applications must be poured out at the base; (5) whence do we know it of other blood? From the text, ‘And the rest of the blood shall be drained out [at the base of the altar]’. (6) Yet still, does it come for this purpose? It is required for what was taught: How do we know that if [the priest] poured out [the blood] which should be sprinkled,7 he has fulfilled [his obligation]? (8) From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out. (9) He holds as R. Akiba who maintained: pouring is not included in sprinkling, nor is sprinkling included in pouring. (10) For we learnt: If he recited the blessing for the Passover-offering, he thereby exempts the [festival] sacrifice; but if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice, he does not exempt the Passover-offering. This is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: The former does not exempt the latter, nor does the latter exempt the former. (11) Yet still, is it required for this purpose? [Surely] it is needed for what was taught, [viz.]: R. Ishmael said: From the text, But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat [thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire], (12) we learn that a firstling must have its blood and its emurim presented at the altar. Whence do we know [it of] the tithe and the Passoveroffering? Because it says, ‘And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out’? — He agrees with R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: [Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke]: (13) not ‘its blood’ is said, but ‘their blood’; not ‘its fat’ is said, but ‘their fat’. (14) This teaches concerning the firstling, the tithe [of animals], and the Passover-offering, that their blood and emurim must be presented at the altar. (15) Now, does R. Ishmael utilize this text for both purposes? (16) — There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Ishmael's view. (17) As for R. Ishmael, who makes the whole verse refer to a firstling, it is well: hence it is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine. (18) But according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too, [surely] the tithe and the Passoveroffering are eaten by their owners; what then is the meaning of ‘And the flesh of them shall be thine’? — [The plural intimates,] whether it be whole or blemished,

---

(1). ↑ If any blood is left over after the regulation sprinkling. — This is stated explicitly of the sinoffering only (Lev. IV, 18), and the Talmud now wishes to extend it to other sacrifices too.
(2). ↑ The author of the first deduction.
(3). ↑ Lev. V, 9.
(4). ↑ It is understood from the general context.
(5). ↑ Viz., the sin-offering.
(6). ↑ The two lines that follow in the original are a mere repetition, and are deleted by Sh. M.
(7). ↑ Some blood requires sprinkling (Zerikah), i.e., from the distance: other requires pouring out (shefikah), i.e., the priest must stand at the side of the altar and pour the blood out.
(8). ↑ The sacrifice is valid.
(9). ↑ The plural indicates all sacrifices, even those for which Zerikah is prescribed.
(10). ↑ Therefore where Scripture prescribes sprinkling, the sacrifice is not valid if the blood is merely poured out at the base. Hence he rejects the above interpretation, and so utilizes the text for the purpose originally stated.
(11). ↑ In Pes. 121a it is explained that in R. Ishmael's opinion sprinkling (Zerikah) is included in pouring (shefikah), but pouring is not included in sprinkling; whereas R. Akiba holds that neither is included in the other. Thus (as explained by Rashbam a.l.): Both R. Ishmael and R. Akiba hold that the blood of the Passover-offering must be poured out, i.e., the priest must stand quite close to the altar and gently pour the blood on to its base. But the blood of the festival-offering (Hagigah) requires sprinkling, i.e., from a distance and with some force. Now R. Ishmael holds that if the latter is poured out instead of sprinkled, the obligation of sprinkling has nevertheless been discharged. Consequently, the blessing for the Passover-offering includes that of the festivaloffering, since in both the blood may be poured on to the base of the altar. But if the blood of the Passover-offering is sprinkled, the obligation has not been discharged: consequently the blessing for the festival-offering, whose blood is normally sprinkled, does not exempt the Passover-offering. By the same reasoning we infer that in R. Akiba's view neither includes the other.
(12). ↑ Num. XVIII, 17.
(13). ↑ Ibid.
(14). ↑ Though the passage treats of the firstling only. The plural possessive suffix indicates that other sacrifices too are included in this law.
(15). ↑ These are the only sacrifices in connection with which it is not mentioned elsewhere, hence the plural is applied to them.
(16). ↑ Lit., ‘for this purpose and for that purpose’. Surely not! The reference is to ‘and the blood of thy sacrifices thou shalt pour out’, from which he learns that if the priest pours out blood which really should be sprinkled, he discharges his obligation. The author of that cannot be R. Akiba, for if it is, why does the blessing for the Passoveroffering not exempt that of the festival sacrifice, since, as shown supra, one is dependent on the other? Hence the author must be R. Ishmael; but he also interprets the same verse as intimating that the blood of the Passover-offering is to be poured, not sprinkled.
(17). ↑ Rashi: He who learns from this text that the blood of the Passover-offering is poured out, rejects the ruling that the benediction for the Passover-offering exempts that for the festivaloffering, and holds that R. Ishmael does not disagree with R. Akiba on this matter, for now we cannot learn from the text that what should be sprinkled is also valid if poured out. He however who maintains that they do disagree, holds that the blood of the Passover must be sprinkled, not poured out, like a peace-offering. Nevertheless, the Passover-offering is the principal one, while the festival-offering is only subsidiary to it; therefore the benediction for the former exempts that of the latter, but not vice versa. Tosaf. Strongly criticizes this explanation, and offers others, none of which, however, are quite free from objections.
(18). ↑ Num. XVIII, 18. — ‘Thine’ means the priest's, to whom the firstling belongs. The Plural ‘them’ is then understood to mean the ox, sheep, and goat, enumerated in the preceding verse.